"All WCA Events Completion" Club

So with the addition of big bld means lots of people are discussing making a separate membership level for big bld means. Some are even suggesting more changes such as James molloys https://sam596.github.io/WCA-Stats/mollerzmembership/table.html.

What are your thoughts on this? I think requirements should stay the same but just throw bigbld means into the requirement for silver+
 
I like the idea of different systems. These lists are all just for fun anyway, and having multiple systrms instead of a single one actually better justifies the WCA allowing the big BLD means, since doing so doesn't really affect anything official.

I like James Molloy's system; it seems like a good way to sort things out. But I also like this one - there's room for both.
 
My first thought about the linked system above, which also applies to the current system, is that WRs, wins, championships, etc. are their own thing, why include them in this?

Bronze: singles in all events
Silver: singles in all events, plus averages in all events except blind and FMC
Gold: averages in all events
Rank within each status by sum-of-ranks rather than when it was achieved.
 
My first thought about the linked system above, which also applies to the current system, is that WRs, wins, championships, etc. are their own thing, why include them in this?

Bronze: singles in all events
Silver: singles in all events, plus averages in all events except blind and FMC
Gold: averages in all events
Rank within each status by sum-of-ranks rather than when it was achieved.
Currently I see it as a more completionist kind of achievement than an all-rounder thing. We already have SOR and Kinch for that so I think memberships should stay as a more completionist kind of thing.
 
Currently I see it as a more completionist kind of achievement than an all-rounder thing. We already have SOR and Kinch for that so I think memberships should stay as a more completionist kind of thing.
So . . . You agree with me about taking out the stuff about records and championships but think we should still rank by date achieved?
 
So . . . You agree with me about taking out the stuff about records and championships but think we should still rank by date achieved?
I think we should keep the records and championships, the current objective is to have a full profile after all. Ranking I don’t care about as much, like I said it’s more of a completionist thing in my eyes so it’s just a matter of finishing.
 
I think we should keep the records and championships, the current objective is to have a full profile after all. Ranking I don’t care about as much, like I said it’s more of a completionist thing in my eyes so it’s just a matter of finishing.
Fair enough, on the other hand records and championships are something really only available to people with natural talent. In my mind, all-events completion is a different achievement that ideally ought to be possible for somebody like me, who has very little natural talent but above average stubbornness.
 
Back
Top