Remove Rubik's Cube as an Official Event

[Deleted member 19792]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kit Clement]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

-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.

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

It's a very popular event.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

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

You can use one hand.

-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.

-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?

-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.

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

There are heaps of interesting methods!

-It's boring and it sucks.

Play with a calculator instead?

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!

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

Use cut-offs and time limits.

Tim.

 

[cmhardw]

Noah, that was great!

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!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Yellowsnow98]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.