# Proposal: changing time limits and #of advancing people during a competition



## Erik (Aug 18, 2014)

During or right before competitions time limits or the number of people that advance in the next round are sometimes suddenly changed. 

I think it's a really bad thing if the organization makes one of the following changes:

- *less* people advanced to the next round
- time limits are *harder *to meet

In other words: if they make changes that are a disadvantage for the competitors.

Why?

There are a lot of cubers that look at their chances of advancing into the next round when registering for a competition. After all, if you only get 2 instead of 5 attempts at something, or if you know you will probably not make it into the next round, your competition might be over quicker than you'd like. If you know you will not be able to advance in event A, you might consider not competing and only practice event B. 
Registering or not (for the whole competion, or just certain events) is something you can decide on forehand based on these time limits. 

I think it is unfair to "change the rules while playing the game". After all you payed your registration fee to compete in the events that were promised to you.

What I propose:

Either: 
- *forbid* the organization to make time limits harder, or decrease the # of competitors advancing into the next round, during or right before the competition
or
- *disencourage* the organization to make time limits harder, or decrease the # of competitors advancing into the next round, during or right before the competition

It can happen that for unforseen reasons you have to save time. For example: if there is an incident, a fire drill etc. I think such reasons are the only valid reasons for making time limits harder. That's why I put the *or* in my proposal. However, the reason time limits are changed or the # of competitors is being decreased is mostly *a bad time schedule. *So if you are a clever organization: you make a time schedule which you can make less strict if possible, not stricter if necessary.


----------



## ryanj92 (Aug 18, 2014)

The only thing I can see happening because of this is rounds of events being cut from competitions instead, to make up the time 

As somebody who sits around the cutoff time in several events, I do know this frustration (I had to forfeit a 6x6x6 mean at nottingham open, which i assisted in organising, in order to get back on schedule). And you're right, I don't think that competitors should suffer from bad event planning. But disallowing changes in the cutoff time alone isn't going to stop this from happening (including the unforseen reasons which you mention), and personally in all cases I would rather change a cutoff/round size and disappoint maybe a few people, then have to make up the time by removing some rounds instead and disappointing more people.

So I guess what I am saying is that yes, we should encourage more sparse schedules  (obviously that is not what competitors want, but that is the responsibility of the organisers)


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 18, 2014)

Brilliant. If this gets adapted, I would just not upload any time schedule for any of my competitions until a day before each competition just to be safe.

As long as this does not get adapted, I will continue to follow the following principles:

1. Publish a time schedule when anouncing a competition, which is not too strict but still based on the number of competitors I predict for a competition at that time. Such a schedule definitely provides a way better idea of thefinal competition to every person interested than a "definitely cannot become stricter" dummy schedule.
2. Better cut a few time limits before the competition than refuse lots of competitors, in case that my estimations are massively exceeded.


----------



## Erik (Aug 18, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> Brilliant. If this gets adapted, I would just not upload any time schedule for any of my competitions until a day before each competition just to be safe.
> 
> As long as this does not get adapted, I will continue to follow the following principles:
> 
> ...



Why do you feel the need of ridiculing my proposal? It is quite disrespectful and childish. This is not the first time.

Don't you think organizers should try everything they can to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton? 

Your principles are fine but I think you misintepreted my proposal:
I didn't say anything about making time limits stricter in the weeks or months there are before the competition. I specifically focus on during the competition and the few days before where competitors can still change their events if they notice they can't meet the time limits. Of course you can/should make your time limits stricter if you notice your competition is getting more competitors than you initially planned. Still, you should also look at things from the perspective of the competitor and do your utmost best to prevent making last-minute adjustments.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 18, 2014)

I fullheartedly agree with you on this, there have been several times that I have not been able to get an average in certain events because of a changed cutoff. I also think that tentative events should NOT be given majority over the original scedule by lowering cutoff times, as I've seen at 2/4 competitions I've gone to.

But we do need flexibility in a schedule, and I like your idea about building more time in case of incidents. Maybe there could be a fall-back schedule with cutoffs to handle being behind schedule?


----------



## TimMc (Aug 18, 2014)

It's not fair to change time limits on the day of a competition. Competitors may feel betrayed if the time limits are made stricter on the day of the competition. And prospective competitors at home may get annoyed if they find out that the originally posted strict time limits were significantly reduced on the day.

It can be difficult to guarantee that "50" competitors will proceed to the second round if 60 out of 70 registered competitors show up on the day of the competition.

Increasing the number of competitors going through to a final might annoy competitors who were under a lot of pressure to perform well to make the top-8 only to find out that 16 will now be put through...

Are there any other factors that would complicate a schedule other than some competitors not showing up? It'd be nice to keep things constant and predictable...

Tim.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Aug 18, 2014)

I think organizers should have more lenient schedules and have more tentative events, instead of promising everything to competitors. 

This puts the organizers in a position where they don't feel pressured to meet the needs of everyone showing up (some parents feel the need to ensure their kid gets to compete in their signature event) and prevents competitors from saying "You said that there would be this and that, now you're changing it!"


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 18, 2014)

Erik said:


> Why do you feel the need of ridiculing my proposal? It is quite disrespectful and childish. This is not the first time.



I'm not ridiculing anything, I am absolutely dead serious. If there is ever going to be a rule that *forbids* making time schedules stricter no matter what, I will no longer publish any time schedule before a competition takes place. It is a simple fact that making safe predictions of the future is impossible, so this is the only way to be safe. 



Erik said:


> Don't you think organizers should try everything they can to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton?



No, I definitely don't think that organizers should try *everything they can* to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton, while I still think that organizers should try to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton. 

There is only one best thing that you can do to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton, and that is not holding a competition. You will probably think again that I am ridiculing your proposal, but I just want to point out what happens if you just focus on one objective of the optimization game "perfect competition schedule". As long as you you try for more than "never tighten afterwards", e.g. "most events" or "most solves for everyone", there is always the possibility to be in trouble at a later point. Don't forget that more events/rounds/solves makes a competition more attractive to most people.



Erik said:


> Your principles are fine but I think you misintepreted my proposal:
> I didn't say anything about making time limits stricter in the weeks or months there are before the competition. I specifically focus on during the competition and the few days before where competitors can still change their events if they notice they can't meet the time limits. Of course you can/should make your time limits stricter if you notice your competition is getting more competitors than you initially planned. Still, you should also look at things from the perspective of the competitor and do your utmost best to prevent making last-minute adjustments.



Ok, so what would you suggest as the exact point in time when I can make the last adjustments to a time schedule?

Also, the perspective of *which* competitor should I consider? Of course some slower copetitor won't like if a schedule becomes stricter a few days before the competition. However, the possible 20 last minute registrants that are only accepted as a result of the time schedule change will surely not complain.

Basically you will have to choose one of the following when getting more registrations than expected:

1. Tighten the schedule.
2. Refuse more competitors.
3. Running late.

None of these options are great, but in my opinion you are proposing to forbid the least worse of those options.


----------



## Erik (Aug 18, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> I'm not ridiculing anything, I am absolutely dead serious. If there is ever going to be a rule that *forbids* making time schedules stricter no matter what, I will no longer publish any time schedule before a competition takes place. It is a simple fact that making safe predictions of the future is impossible, so this is the only way to be safe.



We must use different dictionaries. There are more polite ways that actually invite a usefull discussion than a sarcastic "brilliant", followed up by an organization strategy in which people will be afraid to register.
Btw: if you read my proposal well, you'll I am not only talking about a possible rule that "forbids" something.



> No, I definitely don't think that organizers should try *everything they can* to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton, while I still think that organizers should try to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton.



Although you make it sound like we disagree, I think we actually do agree here. I'm sure competitors would understand it if there is a valid reason (other than a bad time schedule) for changing the time limits.



> There is only one best thing that you can do to prohibit changing time limits right before or during the competiton, and that is not holding a competition. You will probably think again that I am ridiculing your proposal, but I just want to point out what happens if you just focus on one objective of the optimization game "perfect competition schedule". As long as you you try for more than "never tighten afterwards", e.g. "most events" or "most solves for everyone", there is always the possibility to be in trouble at a later point. Don't forget that more events/rounds/solves makes a competition more attractive to most people.



Although I get what you are trying to say, I can't think up a scenario in which an organizer would be forced to change the schedule other than things like fire-drills.



> Ok, so what would you suggest as the exact point in time when I can make the last adjustments to a time schedule?
> 
> Also, the perspective of *which* competitor should I consider? Of course some slower copetitor won't like if a schedule becomes stricter a few days before the competition. However, the possible 20 last minute registrants that are only accepted as a result of the time schedule change will surely not complain.
> 
> ...



Of course choosing any point in time will be arbitrary. Something around 1 week before the competition I guess. It should be long enough so that the organizer will probably not have started to print scorecards. Please remember I am mostly focusing on *during* than before the competition.

As to your example: it is not a smart idea to still let people register a few days before the competition (which is the only possibility that your scenario would be occurring), because of the time schedule and also because you want some time to print score cards etc. This is why it's unnecessary to change your schedule the few days before and especially during the competition. 

So the worst case scenario that could occur imho is: a week(ish) before the comp you have 20 more competitors, you change the time schedule and inform the competitors why. Not much harm is done.


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 18, 2014)

Erik said:


> Btw: if you read my proposal well, you'll I am not only talking about a possible rule that "forbids" something.



I never claimed that. You are proposing X *or* Y. I'm fine with Y but I don't really care enough to comment on it. I consider X terrible though, so I'm argueing against it. What's wrong with that?

Better don't start discussing with me about logics. 



Erik said:


> Although I get what you are trying to say, I can't think up a scenario in which an organizer would be forced to change the schedule other than things like fire-drills.



Here is the simpliest scenario: terrible organisers.  While I like that you assume organisers to be good in general, we both know that this is not always the case. So what happens if you have bad organisers and a bad schedule? And what happens if you have to leave a venue at a certain time? As long as there are scenarios where there is no choice but lowering time limits and/or dropping events (btw, does that count as tightening a schedule in your opinion?), it is just not suitable to forbid this option. At least not as long as you don't want the competition to be invalidated, because a bad organiser drove it into a situation that violates the regulations.


----------



## Erik (Aug 18, 2014)

Sebastien said:


> I never claimed that. You are proposing X *or* Y. I'm fine with Y but I don't really care enough to comment on it. I consider X terrible though, so I'm argueing against it. What's wrong with that?
> 
> Better don't start discussing with me about logics.



I just mentioned it, because you completely left it out. I never said you only claimed that X was my only possible solution  (talking about logics or talking about reading here?)



> Here is the simpliest scenario: terrible organisers.  While I like that you assume organisers to be good in general, we both know that this is not always the case. So what happens if you have bad organisers and a bad schedule? And what happens if you have to leave a venue at a certain time? As long as there are scenarios where there is no choice but lowering time limits and/or dropping events (btw, does that count as tightening a schedule in your opinion?), it is just not suitable to forbid this option. At least not as long as you don't want the competition to be invalidated, because a bad organiser drove it into a situation that violates the regulations.



Bad organizers and bad schedules theoretically happen, it's the organizers responsibility that he runs the competition. Delegates are usually willing to help setting up an achievable time schedule! Maybe it should become a defined task of the delegate to do a quick-check on the schedule, a few days before the competition. That doesn't take much time. After all delegates are normally taken after organizing some competitions themselves. So again: no reason you can't have a decent time schedule. If you are unsure: plan some extra time. It's not like organizing a competition is as easy as solving a Rubik's cube  If you are not sure you are a good organizer, then don't organize. 

If you have to leave the venue at a certain time? Then make sure your competition has a decent schedule. I'm sure you know when to get out sooner than the day of the competition itself.


----------



## Carrot (Aug 18, 2014)

How about something like:
- A competition needs to have a schedule published at least 2 weeks before the competition starts.
and
- A competition may not change/update the schedule if there is less than 7 days till the competition starts.

This allows organisers to upload preliminary schedules so competitors can get an idea of what's happening, and it allows competitors to know that if they are looking at the schedule less than a week prior to the competition, then there will be no changes.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 18, 2014)

I think two things need to happen:

1. Competition websites need to make it more clear that time limits and # of people advancing are only tentative and are based on how smoothly the competition is running. I think that a time limit that is not accompanied by a disclaimer should not be subject to change.

2. Every non-tentative event needs to happen. I've been to two or three competitions where an event or a second round was cancelled due to time constraints. Sometimes people will travel for hours just to compete in a certain event, so it is never ok to cancel one that has been announced as happening. 

I think that organizers should use tentative events more often. That way even if absolutely everything goes wrong, you can still satisfy everyone's expectations by holding the announced events, and if everything goes well you can make some extra people happy too.


----------



## BillyRain (Aug 18, 2014)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Too many times have I practiced for hours on end to ensure that I am below a certain cut off.. only for the cut to be changed in my face 10 minutes before the event starts


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 18, 2014)

Noahaha said:


> I think two things need to happen:
> 
> 1. Competition websites need to make it more clear that time limits and # of people advancing are only tentative and are based on how smoothly the competition is running. I think that a time limit that is not accompanied by a disclaimer should not be subject to change.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## hcfong (Aug 18, 2014)

In my opinion, a well-planned competition does not to change time limits, cutoffs or number of competitors proceeding to the next round. A good organiser knows his venue, how many timers he has available, has a good idea of what solve times can be expected, knows roughly how much time it takes to start up an event and changing groups, and most importantly, is aware of his own limitations as to the number of competitors he can handle. I think in most cases an organiser needs to adjust time limits, it's because the organiser has got one of the above wrong or he has got it right, but just ignored it and allowed more competitors to attend the competition than he, the venue or the number of timers can handle. I believe that when an organiser gets into trouble with his schedule because of bad planning, he should not be allowed to change his schedule. It is the organiser's responsibility to make sure the schedule is achievable and if he has been overambitious with scheduling events and time limits, then it's his responsibility to ensure that the competition goes ahead as planned, even if this costs him money because of extra rent for a longer venue hire. I would say this is part of the learning process. 

Of course there can be unforeseen circumstances when, no matter how good your planning was, things do not go according to plan. I believe there was a competition in the northeast of the US where because of extreme weather conditions, the venue for a competition was unavailable and the organiser and delegate had to look for a new venue on the day itself. In these sort of cases, I think it is reasonable to allow adjustments in the schedule and/or time limits. 

In short, if an organiser gets into trouble with his schedule because of his own bad planning, he needs to sort it out and make sure the competition goes ahead as planned and published.
If an organiser gets into trouble with his schedule because of circumstances he could not have reasonably foreseen, that changes in the schedule could be allowed at the discretetion of the WCA delegate.


----------



## shelley (Aug 18, 2014)

hcfong said:


> Of course there can be unforeseen circumstances when, no matter how good your planning was, things do not go according to plan. I believe there was a competition in the northeast of the US where because of extreme weather conditions, the venue for a competition was unavailable and the organiser and delegate had to look for a new venue on the day itself. In these sort of cases, I think it is reasonable to allow adjustments in the schedule and/or time limits.



Unforeseen circumstances like this are why planning guidelines shouldn't be codified in the regulations. You know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men.


----------



## Laura O (Aug 18, 2014)

Obviously I have a different view on competitions or at least on attending them. I've been to nearly 60 competitions in the last 5 years and I can't remember a single one where I registered because of a time-limit. Of course, events can be a good argument (at least more or less uncommon events like feet or FMC mean) but I don't think that the complete removal of events happens that often.

But apart from that and back to the topic: if we had such a rule, what would be the penalty for changing the schedule too late? Who should be blamed?
And how can you find out who is responsible and distinguish between unforeseen circumstances and just failure?
I don't think this is possible at all.


----------



## dlo (Aug 18, 2014)

hcfong said:


> In short, if an organiser gets into trouble with his schedule because of his own bad planning, he needs to sort it out and make sure the competition goes ahead as planned and published.



I'm not sure how you see this working. You can't just "will" the competition back on schedule. Yes, it would be preferable if posted schedules were reasonable and achievable. However, in the case that it does not (which could happen due to something as simple as a timer breaking), there's limited options on how to get back on schedule. Running late is not always an option, even with paying more. Also, what if competitors can't stay late to compete in event X? Does that also count as a violation of the posted schedule?

As others have mentioned, a big issue is codifying this as a regulation. What is the penalty for running behind schedule? Is it that the competition must run until all scheduled events have been run, possibly late into the night or the next day? Or is the competition considered void because of a failed schedule? That doesn't seem to be a better solution. In a practical sense, the way to get around this type of regulation is to declare everything as tentative in order to have the flexibility we currently have.


----------



## Bob (Aug 19, 2014)

The only times I have seen this done is to avoid the complete removal of another event. For example, at LSC 2013 last year, we had 30+ day-of competitors, most of whom were over 1 minute solvers, and more than 50 people registered for the competition in the last week that registration was open. As a result, cutoffs had to be much stricter than anticipated. If I had announced cutoffs on the website beforehand (I do not anymore because people cry when I have to change them), I would not have been able to keep them. My options were to either make the cutoffs stricter or eliminate an event entirely. Which do you consider to be the better option?

Sometimes it's not bad planning, it's unforeseen circumstances.


----------



## Erik (Aug 19, 2014)

larf said:


> Obviously I have a different view on competitions or at least on attending them. I've been to nearly 60 competitions in the last 5 years and I can't remember a single one where I registered because of a time-limit. Of course, events can be a good argument (at least more or less uncommon events like feet or FMC mean) but I don't think that the complete removal of events happens that often.
> 
> But apart from that and back to the topic: if we had such a rule, what would be the penalty for changing the schedule too late? Who should be blamed?
> And how can you find out who is responsible and distinguish between unforeseen circumstances and just failure?
> I don't think this is possible at all.



I know of quite a few competitors that have a look at the time schedule and by estimating if they can manage the time limit or not, register for that event or better spend their time practicing for other events. This is especially the case at events like 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, 3 BLD etc. Events like these are also the ones where time limits get the most last-minute changes to win time. 

As for breaking the rule (remember, my proposal didn't only mention a hard 'forbid'), what's the penalty for not providing a schedule, not having a score taker, not having a smoke-free venue, not having a competitors area, or for when the competition is not publically accessible? I think this is all the same category. We have those rules, but no penalty. The main purpose of the previous set of rules is to prevent unwanted situations and force organizers to organize an acceptable competition.

In the unlikely event that you have to make last-minute changes (I really think a delegate should have to quick-check and approve the schedule before a comp), the best option would in most cases be to let the competition run late. Like Hwee-Chong said: as an organizer you are responsible, so you have to pay up when you have to pay extra rent. If it's not possible to extend the competition and events have to be skipped, I'd highly doubt accepting another competition of that organizer and as a competitor I'd want part of my money back. Again: this can most certainly be prevented by proper planning!

@ Shelley: of course there are valid reasons. In that case you can change the schedule after consulting the delegate, after which the delegate would put the fire-drill, extreme weather etc. in their delegate report and everything is settled. Still, because you have some valid scenarios doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prohibit situations you actually can influence I think.

@ Bob: I'm sorry, but I don't see which unforseen circumstances took place. You knew who was competing right? So you could've adjusted the time schedule before the competition started. I understand a change had to be made, but I fail to see why you'd have to find out at the day of the competition. Unless I misunderstood and the change was made before the competition started (it's not entirely clear for me, reading your post)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 19, 2014)

Erik said:


> During or right before competitions time limits or the number of people that advance in the next round are sometimes suddenly changed.



Do you have examples in mind? Examples in this thread are mostly hypothetical (apart from some very justifiable cases). As a general rule, I try to avoid spending too much time on "just in case" Regulations.



Noahaha said:


> I think that organizers should use tentative events more often.



Tentative events are fabulous. We've used them a lot at Stanford (and might have introduced the term "tentative event"?), and I think ti's reasonable even to have quite a few tentative events.
It's always possible to convert a tentative event to a guaranteed one. Berkeley and Stanford have done this a few times when a competitor (Takao Hashimoto) nicely asked whether he'd be able to participate in Square-1 or Megaminx for sure (so that his trip would be worthwhile).




larf said:


> But apart from that and back to the topic: if we had such a rule, what would be the penalty for changing the schedule too late? Who should be blamed?
> And how can you find out who is responsible and distinguish between unforeseen circumstances and just failure?
> I don't think this is possible at all.



Organizers are expected to hold competitions properly. If something slips at a competition, the organizer should make it clear to the Delegate that they will be able to fix the problem time, else they should lose the privilege to hold competitions.

Delegates are expected to follow the Regulations and the spirit of the WCA. If *they* can't make the right judgments for something like this, they should also be at risk to lose Delegate status. I don't think we've had a problem with that, though.





Erik said:


> @ Shelley: of course there are valid reasons. In that case you can change the schedule after consulting the delegate, after which the delegate would put the fire-drill, extreme weather etc. in their delegate report and everything is settled. Still, because you have some valid scenarios doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prohibit situations you actually can influence I think.



For those who aren't aware, I'd like to draw attention to A1a3 and A1a3+, as well as our the definition of "should" that we use:



> A1a3) For each round, any time limits must be announced before the round starts, and should not be changed after it has begun. Changes must be made at the discretion of the WCA Delegate, who must carefully consider the fairness of the change.
> A1a3+) REMINDER The organisation team and the WCA Delegate must be mindful that time limits influence the strategies of the competitors (e.g. rushing the first two attempts in hopes of meeting a cutoff in a combined round), and that changing time limits after the beginning of the round can disadvantage some competitors unfairly.





> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.



We could expand A1a3 a little. As mentioned before, I'd like to know of concrete examples. If we make a change, we should address the kinds of decisions that have been problematic in the past, without infringing on the freedom and judgment of organizers (and Delegates) more than necessary.


----------



## Jimmy Liu (Aug 19, 2014)

> During or right before competitions time limits or the number of people that advance in the next round are sometimes suddenly changed.



I have just experienced a situation like this during Cross-Strait 2014.

As for this was the first time ever I flew to another country for competition, I was hoping they would qualify more people to the second round to make my trip worthy. But neither the delegates nor organizers announced how many people would advance to the next round before the competition, they just decided it at will during comps.
Take 4x4 for example, they qualified maybe around 14 people to the final round initially, and they change the numbers not once but twice. While the first day of competition was over, I was at hotel checking results through cubecomps, only to find that they change the number to 12 people who were advancing to the final.
As the second day began, I found that they only qualified 9 people.
Same situation happened in 2x2, they qualified 27 people who are all sub 6, but they cut it to 15 people who are all sub 5.
Maybe cubecomps was not reliable for correct information, but the delegates who didn't inform how many people would make next round beforehand was just annoying.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 19, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> A1a3) For each round, any time limits must be announced before the round starts, and should not be changed after it has begun. Changes must be made at the discretion of the WCA Delegate, who must carefully consider the fairness of the change.
> A1a3+) REMINDER The organisation team and the WCA Delegate must be mindful that time limits influence the strategies of the competitors (e.g. rushing the first two attempts in hopes of meeting a cutoff in a combined round), and that changing time limits after the beginning of the round can disadvantage some competitors unfairly.



I think this pretty much solves the problem already...

Also


> Tentative events are fabulous. It's always possible to convert a tentative event to a guaranteed one.


This


----------



## BillyRain (Aug 19, 2014)

The worst was when I used to be slower and they used to change the 4x4 and 5x5 cuts at the last minute by 10 seconds. So it would go from 2:30 to 2:20 or something. It would almost kill my chances of making cut and would be so disheartening after doing so much practice.

Also, how much difference is 10 seconds really going to make during a round?!


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 19, 2014)

BillyRain said:


> Also, how much difference is 10 seconds really going to make during a round?!



It's not the 10s time saving obviously but the time saved because some (slower) people (in this case you) won't make the cut-off and don't get to do the last 3 attempts --> much more time saved than 10s...


----------



## Erik (Aug 19, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Do you have examples in mind? Examples in this thread are mostly hypothetical (apart from some very justifiable cases). As a general rule, I try to avoid spending too much time on "just in case" Regulations.



This is certainly not a "1 in 1000 comps" scenario. I haven't been to many competitions the last few months so I can't remember specific cases. The last speficic case I experienced is maybe German Nationals 2013, where time limits were changed on the day of the competition itself. It caused quite some frustration with some competitors. Not entirely sure which event, but I could find out if you are interested.

It's probably a wild guess but I estimate it happens in about 1/10 to 1/15 competitions, which I would definitely consider to be "significant". Of course I can only speak for West-Europe.


----------



## Jimmy Liu (Aug 19, 2014)

I suppose we could change time limits and #of advancing people during a competition, but only under the circumstances that the time limits are loosen and advancing people are more.
That is, we'd better set a strict time limits and strict advancing people before competition to ensure the schedule could be done smoothly, then we can base on registrations to adjust them.


----------



## Laura O (Aug 19, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Organizers are expected to hold competitions properly. If something slips at a competition, the organizer should make it clear to the Delegate that they will be able to fix the problem time, else they should lose the privilege to hold competitions.
> 
> Delegates are expected to follow the Regulations and the spirit of the WCA. If *they* can't make the right judgments for something like this, they should also be at risk to lose Delegate status. I don't think we've had a problem with that, though.



I totally agree with that (these are just facts) but I don't understand how this is connected with the posting you quoted.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like last-minute changes in the schedule, I don't like unreasonable or just bad schedules and I think that's something that should be avoided in any case. There are delegates who care a lot about their schedules and they work out quite well, while there are others who use the same schedule for their competitions since years with the same problems appearing again and again. So obviously it's just a question of how much you care about it. 

Nevertheless I think it's pointless to formulate rules for that because they already exist on the one hand. On the other hand I don't know how they can actually be used. And if this is just a "should be" without any concrete consequences, I don't see any improvement through this.


----------



## Dene (Aug 19, 2014)

I don't have anything new to add in terms of my opinion on the subject, I just thought I would say to all the organisers out there:

Just close registration a week before the competition starts, don't accept any more registrations, then write the schedule. Once you've been doing this for a while you'll soon get the hang of it.


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 19, 2014)

BillyRain said:


> The worst was when I used to be slower and they used to change the 4x4 and 5x5 cuts at the last minute by 10 seconds. So it would go from 2:30 to 2:20 or something. It would almost kill my chances of making cut and would be so disheartening after doing so much practice.
> 
> Also, how much difference is 10 seconds really going to make during a round?!


I don't believe we have ever done this at a UK comp in 4x4 and 5x5. Sometimes it is 2:30 and sometimes 2:20, but it has never been changed last minute. If you can point to an online schedule that shows the pre-comp advertised cutoffs and then some results that show it was changed, I will take that back, but I don't believe it has been done.
Also, it's not a 10 second difference, it's 1 or more competitors doing 3 solves more, which can make a significant difference.

I remember that we did change 6x6 or 7x7 (can't remember which) once, which affected you, and yes we considered that it would annoy people, and made a judgement call on it, as the regulations allow currently.


----------



## Pedro (Aug 19, 2014)

I also don't like changing cutoffs during the competition, but I would rather do that than have to drop something. As someone already said, running late is not always an option, and people have planes/trains/bus/whatever to get, and those don't wait because the competition is late.

My schedules always say something like "this is provisional...it may change based on registrations".

And if you close registration a week before, and then make the schedule, what would be the limit for posting/changing the cutoffs? 6 days?
To have a final schedule a week before, you'd need to close registration even sooner...


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 19, 2014)

tl;dr current situation is fine for me.

I can see the only problem if the competition has a fee for each event. A competitor pays N bucks hoping he can do 5 attempts only to find out that the cut-offs changed and he will be able to do 2 attempts for the same money.
Ah, there can also be an issue with blinds when you can choose between fast and safe solves.

I hope a Delegate will take this into consideration when changing the cut-offs or limits, as A1a3+ says.

Beside that, I can hardly find an issue. Some people say changing limits or cut-offs is frustrating for competitors. Yes it is, and having tight limits from the beginning is frustrating too, so organizers have to frustrate competitors sometimes.
Some people say that they train hard to make sub-2:30 only to find out that the cut-off was changed to 2:20. Obviously, such competitor can't win this event (unless organizers set a very very hard cut-off). So why did he train this event so hard? I can see two reasons why you train something: either to win/podium or - ba-dum-tss - just for fun. Training just for having avg5 in WCA database is pointless imho. You should never forget to have fun of trainings.

As a side affect, as Sebastien mentioned, this change encourages organizers to announce limits at the last moment before the event starts. And also, a competition with limits changing in the last moment is better than no competition at all (to those who want to forbid organizers to organize further competitions).


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Aug 19, 2014)

Jimmy Liu said:


> I have just experienced a situation like this during Cross-Strait 2014.
> 
> As for this was the first time ever I flew to another country for competition, I was hoping they would qualify more people to the second round to make my trip worthy. But neither the delegates nor organizers announced how many people would advance to the next round before the competition, they just decided it at will during comps.
> Take 4x4 for example, they qualified maybe around 14 people to the final round initially, and they change the numbers not once but twice. While the first day of competition was over, I was at hotel checking results through cubecomps, only to find that they change the number to 12 people who were advancing to the final.
> ...



Periodically this happens if the organizers forget to put the correct number of people advancing into cubecomps before the competition. Then cubecomps will just say 3/4 of the competitors are advancing, even if that's not what the organizers were planning, and then they have to change it to the real number. I'm guessing that's what happened in 2x2; 27 is close to 3/4 of the 38 competitors in round 2.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 20, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> Some people say that they train hard to make sub-2:30 only to find out that the cut-off was changed to 2:20. Obviously, such competitor can't win this event (unless organizers set a very very hard cut-off). So why did he train this event so hard? I can see two reasons why you train something: either to win/podium or - ba-dum-tss - just for fun. Training just for having avg5 in WCA database is pointless imho. You should never forget to have fun of trainings.


Are you serious ? Every competitor has his own goals at every compettion, and making the cutoff is a perfectly acceptable one. Your comment is just rude and sirespectful for those competitors ("you can't get a podium in that event ? Then shut up, we don't care about you and we can spoil you whenever we want"); if you truly have that kind of mentality, please remind me to never attend a comp you are the delegate of.


----------



## Zoé (Aug 20, 2014)

I can see one big problem with changing cutoffs/hard time limit when you need to pay in advance and the fee you pay increases as you get closer to the competition. 

If such a competition has nice cutoff/hard time limit in the provisional schedule, then a slow competitor might want to register early for event he thinks he will make the cutoff/hard time limit and where he will be able to get a time. Of course he knows that those can change, but if he waits to register he will have to pay more. So what to do then?
If they register and then the time limits or worse the hard cutoff were to be changed not too long before the competition, it could result in them having registered and paid for an event where the only "times" they will ever have are DNFs!
If they don't register and wait to be sure to register only in the events where they can make the cutoffs/hard time limits, they will just have to pay more for those events, which is kind of a waste of their money.

In both case, I think it's a bad situation and we should definitely try to avoid it! We could for example allow people that registered early to retrieve from events and get their money back if the cutoffs/hard time limits get stricter.


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 20, 2014)

TMOY said:


> Are you serious ? Every competitor has his own goals at every compettion, and making the cutoff is a perfectly acceptable one. Your comment is just rude and sirespectful for those competitors ("you can't get a podium in that event ? Then shut up, we don't care about you and we can spoil you whenever we want"); if you truly have that kind of mentality, please remind me to never attend a comp you are the delegate of.



I have not changed limits during the competition yet 
Ok, each competitor has his own goals. As I said, changing limits can frustrate some competitors. But I hope that organizers and delegates have a very good reason for doing so, and forbidding this won't be fine.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 20, 2014)

DrKorbin said:


> I have not changed limits during the competition yet
> Ok, each competitor has his own goals. As I said, changing limits can frustrate some competitors. But I hope that organizers and delegates have a very good reason for doing so, and forbidding this won't be fine.



I'm not asking to forbid this, I've already been to comps when it was actually necessary. But it still should be discouraged as much as possible.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 20, 2015)

aguuugw said:


> I agree this is not good. I was at a comp with megaminx and I hadn't done that before and wanted the official times. The soft was 3:30 and hard was 6:00. I practiced hard for many hours to be sub 3:30 and was averaging ~3:18 at the time of the comp. 15 min before event soft change to 2:30 and hard to 3:00. So now I have 2 megaminx DNFs in my profile. Wanting real times aside, I payed real actual MONEY for 5 megaminx solves. And I got 2 incomplete solves instead. My next comp had the 2.5/3 cutoff already and I am averaging sub 2:30 by now, but if they change on me again I will not be a happy camper.



Thanks for posting about this. It's good to know, for any future Regulation changes about time limits.

(I've also posted to the Delegate email list asking about this incident.)


----------



## PanCakez001 (Jan 27, 2015)

aguuugw said:


> I agree this is not good. I was at a comp with megaminx and I hadn't done that before and wanted the official times. The soft was 3:30 and hard was 6:00. I practiced hard for many hours to be sub 3:30 and was averaging ~3:18 at the time of the comp. 15 min before event soft change to 2:30 and hard to 3:00. So now I have 2 megaminx DNFs in my profile. Wanting real times aside, I payed real actual MONEY for 5 megaminx solves. And I got 2 incomplete solves instead. My next comp had the 2.5/3 cutoff already and I am averaging sub 2:30 by now, but if they change on me again I will not be a happy camper.



Hey there Alex. This is Shonathon Collins ( the delegate for the competition.)

The decision for changes to the cutoffs were not changed the day of the competition. They were actually changed several days prior to the competition (roughly 5) and those changes were made the website after a realization between the organizer and myself that there was not enough time (only 30 minutes) to run an event with 21 people signed up ( granted only 13 showed) with a soft of 3:30 and a hard of 6. 

I'm sorry that this inconvenienced you. This upcoming competition shows no reason for the cutoffs to be changed so u should be able to get an average and hopefully a good single. 

Sorry for the inconvenience once again.


----------



## Dene (Jan 27, 2015)

Might I suggest for future competitions, if changes are made to the schedule, all competitors should be informed via e-mail, social media or whatever.


----------



## ComputerGuy365 (Jan 29, 2015)

I totally agree.

Like you said, It's just like changing the rules during the game. 

For instance:

That's like saying during a game of monopoly, the goal is to become bankrupt. Even though you already earned a ton of money from your properties, your work is just thrown away.

The cutoffs should not be changed at all during a comp.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 29, 2015)

ComputerGuy365 said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> 
> That's like saying during a game of monopoly, the goal is to become bankrupt. Even though you already earned a ton of money from your properties, your work is just thrown away.



No. No it's not.
That would be the same as saying that "The goal is to solve the puzzle as slow as possible. Slowest one wins."

But yeah I agree that it is irritating when the cutoff gets changed and you can't reach it anymore. And I think this should be avoided if possible.
However I think that delegates should have an option to do this as their final resort.
For example if we have a venue that says that we need to be out of the venue at 6pm sharp and the competition is dragging behind the schedule badly. Obviously something has to be done and the possibilities I can come up with are:
a) leave out some events/rounds
b) stricter cutoffs to remaining events

Now obviously neither of these solutions is good but I think that delegates need to have this(these) options as their LAST RESORT! Again I don't say this should be done frequently BUT I think sometimes it could be absolutely necessary...


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jan 29, 2015)

ComputerGuy365 said:


> The cutoffs should not be changed at all during a comp.



Statements like that make it very obvious that you haven't been a part of an organizing team.

Cutoffs at competitions should properly reflect the amount of time an event will take versus the amount of time willing to be used on a specific event. In ideal circumstances, the cutoffs would be perfect and would allow for perfect clarity between organizers and competitors. 

However, this isn't always the case. Sometimes more people than expected show up. Sometimes someone promising to scramble breaks their hand before the competition. Sometimes organizers are too lenient and make unreasonable cutoffs. There are lots of ways to have cutoffs change during a competition.

While it's not ideal to change cutoffs, sometimes it has to happen to have the majority of the competition run as smoothly as possible. I had to drop cutoffs significantly during a competition I organized, and I felt bad about that. I really wanted everyone to be able to compete, but sometimes you have to sacrifice some people's solves to ensure that a majority of competitors get to compete. Yes this is biased for faster solvers, but that's how competitions work. Faster people are more likely to finish all their times. 

Cutoffs _should _be changed at competitions only when absolutely necessary. Competition organizers _should_ make lenient schedules with slightly stricter cutoffs, ensuring a high likelihood of running on time. However, what competitions _should_ be like and what competitions are actually like do not always overlap, and this causes cutoff changes.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 29, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> Cutoffs _should _be changed at competitions only when absolutely necessary. Competition organizers _should_ make lenient schedules with slightly stricter cutoffs, ensuring a high likelihood of running on time. However, what competitions _should_ be like and what competitions are actually like do not always overlap, and this causes cutoff changes.



I agree with this so much.
We're trying to do this for BASC 5, with the intention of tightening up the schedule (according to our expected time calculator) as soon as reg closes to try fitting in another FMC attempt.

Do many organisers use a system like the CubingUSA expected time calculator when generating a schedule?


----------

