Red Bull Rubik's Cube World Championships

[turtwig]

The suggested regulation was not meant to be an affront to those who have already committed at all, but moreso a statement to Rubiks, and would effectively force them into talks about how to work together with the WCA. It could even be a bluff for all I care.

How would punishing competitors of the Rubik's competition get Rubik's to do anything for the WCA? If someone chooses to compete even if they are essentially banned from the WCA, they clearly care about Rubik's a lot more than the WCA anyway.

In any case, doing something like that would defeat the whole point of being against Rubik's recent actions. We don't like that they're trying to destroy our community and force people to use Rubik's brands, so removing people's freedom to choose which competitions they can compete in and banning them if they choose otherwise will only make Rubik's look better in comparison to the WCA.

 

[AlphaSheep]

I've seen no one suggest a real solution to this problem that would resolve it completely in this thread, and this idea does that. The community is virtually in agreement that the Red Bull competition, if it continues in the manner that it seems to be going currently, should not be held and is in poor taste. The suggested regulation was not meant to be an affront to those who have already committed at all, but moreso a statement to Rubiks, and would effectively force them into talks about how to work together with the WCA. It could even be a bluff for all I care.

TL;DR My previous statement was a suggested pragmatic solution to force Rubiks hand, not an attack on interested competitors. It is not out of spite at all, but instead would be something the WCA could do that would actually have some teeth to it in dealing with this issue.

Seriously? I'm actually disgusted that you'd suggest this. This sort of action would be blatantly unfair to those competitors, and anyone with a genuine sense of justice would be sickened if they were to take such a drastic action. That is not the sort of organisation I would want to be a part of.

In case you hadn't picked up on this, this whole thing is about freedom of choice. Rubik's want to limit competitors freedom of choice, while the WCA is set on preserving it. If the WCA were to start limiting peoples choices, then we'd just be stuck with two organisations that limit freedom of choice, and where would that leave us? I know you want to teach Rubik's a lesson or something, but there's that old saying that fighting fire with fire just leaves everyone burnt.

Cubing is a hobby, and at the end of the day, cubers just want to enjoy their hobby without having to get dragged into petty politics. If the WCA really wants to get through this, they have to do exactly what they have said they will do - carry on holding awesome competitions all around the world with a variety of events.

 

[obelisk477]

Seriously? I'm actually disgusted that you'd suggest this. This sort of action would be blatantly unfair to those competitors, and anyone with a genuine sense of justice would be sickened if they were to take such a drastic action. That is not the sort of organisation I would want to be a part of.

In case you hadn't picked up on this, this whole thing is about freedom of choice. Rubik's want to limit competitors freedom of choice, while the WCA is set on preserving it. If the WCA were to start limiting peoples choices, then we'd just be stuck with two organisations that limit freedom of choice, and where would that leave us? I know you want to teach Rubik's a lesson or something, but there's that old saying that fighting fire with fire just leaves everyone burnt.

Cubing is a hobby, and at the end of the day, cubers just want to enjoy their hobby without having to get dragged into petty politics. If the WCA really wants to get through this, they have to do exactly what they have said they will do - carry on holding awesome competitions all around the world with a variety of events.

Oh, I wasn't saying that my idea *should* happen, but I'm saying it *could* and it would probably be very effective.

Now, *should* we do it? It is better to take the moral high ground and not do so I suppose; but someone with money (Rubiks), who who cares about making more money, is almost always more efficient and effective at achieving their ends than those who are trying to place nice and doing it for fun. And anyone who doesn't understand that is naïve. So that must be kept in mind in whatever we decide to do as a community.

 

[One Wheel]

Oh, I wasn't saying that my idea *should* happen, but I'm saying it *could* and it would probably be very effective.

Now, *should* we do it? It is better to take the moral high ground and not do so I suppose; but someone with money (Rubiks), who who cares about making more money, is almost always more efficient and effective at achieving their ends than those who are trying to place nice and doing it for fun. And anyone who doesn't understand that is naïve. So that must be kept in mind in whatever we decide to do as a community.

Effective at what? Does the WCA want to be known as an organization that ostracizes people, or one that welcomes people? Does the end justify the means, or, what is more likely in my opinion, adopting the means you propose render the end you have in mind impossible?

 

[AlphaSheep]

but someone with money (Rubiks), who who cares about making more money, is almost always more efficient and effective at achieving their ends than those who are trying to place nice and doing it for fun. And anyone who doesn't understand that is naïve.

I think that is definitely true when the established body is the one with money, but it's certainly not true when the established body has the largest support base, and the general support base is against the body with the money. If you want an example, just look at the success of open source software.

 

[mDiPalma]

looking forward to this event! gonna start practicing match-the-scramble!

hopefully the rsa wont violate ethical standards or their own regulations, unlike other organizational bodies in this community...

 

[tien cubes]

Red Bull seems to want more good on itself than the cube community.

 

[Ronxu]

Red Bull seems to want more good on itself than the cube community.

No way! An energy drink company trying to make money instead of asking some kids playing with plastic toys what they want!

 

[Max Cruz]

You're all blind.

The issue is the impression that rubiks have left. When they initiated the lawsuit against TC they implied that they wanted to be in charge and were willing to go to extreme lengths to get their way. Now, when they announce this people automatically assume this is to take over cubing. And it very well could be an attempt.

I am totally against this.

As for everybody saying that we're overreacting, no, we're not. Rubik's have already cemented themselves as a pile of **** who only cares about money and doesn't think about the community. It's only reasonable to assume that it's the same for this, and judging by the reaction, it seems to be that way.


This is not true. I'm considered slow, and I'm not a "whiny ten-year old". Plenty of older cubers are not good enough to make it to the world championships, so I don't know why you're saying this.

Once again, no offense to "whiny ten-year olds." However, what I meant by this was the majority of cubers are irrelevant in a competitive context. Sure, there always has to be someone at the bottom, but I know I do not watch regional tennis tournaments. Rather, I watch the Wimbledon.

Edit:
Is there a separate RSCA forum yet? I would love to voice my opinion on there as well.

 

[ComputerGuy365]

Once again, no offense to "whiny ten-year olds." However, what I meant by this was the majority of cubers are irrelevant in a competitive context. Sure, there always has to be someone at the bottom, but I know I do not watch regional tennis tournaments. Rather, I watch the Wimbledon.

No offense taken, I'm not a whiny ten year old. My point is, you're not just eliminating whiny ten year olds with this, you're eliminating a lot (I'd say >95%) of cubers.

 

[Sajwo]

No offense taken, I'm not a whiny ten year old. My point is, you're not just eliminating whiny ten year olds with this, you're eliminating a lot (I'd say >95%) of cubers.

Practice more.

 

[Zerksies]

I am quite disgusted with all of these negative posts. Have you ever looked at a competition from a spectators perspective it's quite boring. You have one person look at a cube and solve it you eliminate a few times and wow you have a clear winner. It's more exciting to see a two cubers going at it with races in a elimination style tournament. If i had anything to do with the rules i would eliminate the 15 second examination.

 

[Kit Clement]

You have one person look at a cube and solve it you eliminate a few times and wow you have a clear winner.

Corporate corruption aside, this is what people take exception to -- cubing times are incredibly variable. Having a knockout based on just a handful of times which only are used to determine the winner of that particular match rather than the title as a whole makes the winner far less clear than the setup of a WCA competition otherwise would. A 5 second solve in an average of 5 has huge meaning, but a 5 second solve has comparably little meaning in a knockout match, especially if your opponent happened to screw up in that same match. A WCA competition takes solves out of the context of who your opponent is at that time and determines who actually solved the cube the fastest that day.

 

[Zerksies]

determines who actually solved the cube the fastest that day.

So doesn’t this competition. It shows who the fastest on any given day

 

[AlphaSheep]

So doesn’t this competition. It shows who the fastest on any given day

It really only shows who was consistently faster than the person they were paired with in each single solve, which is not necessarily the same thing as who is faster overall. Because certain solves don't count in the WCA averages, there are some pretty cool dynamics that come into play. One example is "Shepping" - to "Shep" someone is to be consistently slower than someone on the first 4 solves, but get a faster average. Here's an example:

Person A:
9.50, 10.50, 11.50, 12.50, 9.50
Person B:
9.00, 10.00, 11.00, 12.00, 12.00

In the first 4 solves, A is consistently 0.5 seconds slower than B, so in the Red Bull system, B wins 4 to 1. In the WCA system, A has an average of 10.50, and B has an average of 11.00, so A wins by half a second.

 

[One Wheel]

I am quite disgusted with all of these negative posts. Have you ever looked at a competition from a spectators perspective it's quite boring. You have one person look at a cube and solve it you eliminate a few times and wow you have a clear winner. It's more exciting to see a two cubers going at it with races in a elimination style tournament. If i had anything to do with the rules i would eliminate the 15 second examination.

The Red Bull format is better for entertainment, worse for figuring out who's actually better. Which format is better depends on what your goal is.

 

[cuber314159]

The Red Bull format is better for entertainment, worse for figuring out who's actually better. Which format is better depends on what your goal is.

Entertainment from what perspective- I'd far rather cube myself than watch someone else cube unless that person was very fast, but even that gets boring. to make cubing entertaining for non cubers is stupid as they would probably enjoy cubing more if they learned to do it themselves

 

[Kit Clement]

So doesn’t this competition. It shows who the fastest on any given day

The part of that sentence you left out of the quote gives the reason why this doesn't do that.

Most sports systems that use a playoff/postseason bracket format also are guilty of this, to be honest. MLB is by far the worst offender -- they play 162 games, which should be more than enough to determine who the best teams actually are, and then let 10 of the 30 teams fight for the title in just a handful of games more, at most 20 for one team, but usually about 13-15 games for the winning team. The team with the best regular season record very frequently does not win the World Series because of letting things come down to matchups and a bit of randomness.

College football had it done the best until they began following the money and expanded their 2 team final into a 4 team playoff. But of course, this is probably the one sport where you could afford to have an expanded playoff due to the sheer number of teams in collegiate sports and the extremely short season of games, giving little basis to say who is the best team.

At least most sports have other factors with respect to matchups. Some batters tend to do better against certain pitchers, some pitchers/batters do better in certain ballparks, etc. You can argue that the playoff system is a good thing because it forces the best teams to play high level competition rather than just be really good against bad opponents and not be able to beat the best teams. But cubing has none of these factors -- you can solve a cube with or without the context of an opponent. So why add in this random component of an opponent when you can simply just find out who can solve the cube fastest? I totally get the argument that head-to-head is more exciting for someone who doesn't know cubing, but it definitely is not the ideal way to determine the best cuber.

 

[One Wheel]

Entertainment from what perspective- I'd far rather cube myself than watch someone else cube unless that person was very fast, but even that gets boring. to make cubing entertaining for non cubers is stupid as they would probably enjoy cubing more if they learned to do it themselves

I agree it's more enjoyable to solve a cube yourself than to watch somebody else do it. I'm sure it's also more enjoyable to actually participate in motocross or rally racing than it is to watch it. Red Bull has proven that they can make really enjoyable television out of head-to-head extreme sports (arguable whether cubing fits, but I digress). That's their goal: good television. To be clear: I object to the rules about using rubik's brand cubes, and I object to calling it a world championship. It's a terrible way to determine a champion. I also object to the relatively minor point that the claim that a "speedsolve" is a new event. I think that the format is a great way to introduce non-cubers to the sport, and I have no objection as a television format.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Rubik's have already cemented themselves as a pile of [poo] who only cares about money and doesn't think about the community.

I sincerely appreciate the kindness of spirit that everyone has about being supportive of people who will choose to participate in the Red Bull comp, but money will destroy kindness every time.

No way! An energy drink company trying to make money instead of asking some kids playing with plastic toys what they want!

Money, money, money.
You've heard of the golden rule.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules.