Should 3x3x3 With Feet Remain an Official WCA Event?

[DeeDubb]

This makes no sense. To continue the analogy, this comment is tantamount to saying that it's okay to discontinue the special Olympics because the physically disabled would still be able to compete against ordinary Olympians. Does that really seem like a reasonable position to you? Can you not see the inherent bias?

Your analogy makes no sense, because in cubing everyone can do feet, not just people with handicaps preventing them from using their hands. This would mean, in your analogy that the wheelchair race in the Special Olympics could be done by anyone, disabled or not, as long as they use a wheelchair. Do you think that seems reasonable?

 

[Bob]

This makes no sense. To continue the analogy, this comment is tantamount to saying that it's okay to discontinue the special Olympics because the physically disabled would still be able to compete against ordinary Olympians. Does that really seem like a reasonable position to you? Can you not see the inherent bias?

It does make sense. Athletes with disabilities do sometimes compete in the Olympics. Are you implying the 3x3 with feet category is meant for those with disabilities? I think Dene's analogy is more aligned than yours is.

Edit: ninja'd!

 

[ottozing]

I just thought about how I'd like another event, so I guess I didn't think of replacing before...? Just taking it out is something I don't agree with at all, personally. I just kinda want something new.

Events don't get "replaced". Events simply get removed or added. When events are added or removed, its never with the intention of making room for another event or with the intention of removing another event because there's now too many events or something.

You should seriously consider refraining from posting too much more in this thread since you've basically just been going off emotion and been strongly biased from the fact that you love feet solving. Other people have been making strong points for keeping feet solving, so you really shouldn't have to feel the need to chime in, because from what I can tell feet isn't going to be removed

 

[Dene]

This makes no sense. To continue the analogy, this comment is tantamount to saying that it's okay to discontinue the special Olympics because the physically disabled would still be able to compete against ordinary Olympians. Does that really seem like a reasonable position to you? Can you not see the inherent bias?

Ok but we have the Olympics, and the Paralympics (as well as the Special Olympics). To make things comparable, we would need to have the WCA, the Para-WCA, and the Special WCA.

This is obviously a stupid idea, because there wouldn't be nearly enough people to make up the numbers in the handicapped WCAs. But the same reason makes it stupid for us to have separate events just for handicapped people, when hardly anyone would participate. In fact, at any given competition there would probably only be one, if any, handicapped person. Why have a completely different category just for them?

This is why it's so great that we can be malleable with the events we already have.

EDIT: Lol he got triple quoted. Damn Jay ruining the trend.

 

[uberCuber]

This makes no sense. To continue the analogy, this comment is tantamount to saying that it's okay to discontinue the special Olympics because the physically disabled would still be able to compete against ordinary Olympians. Does that really seem like a reasonable position to you? Can you not see the inherent bias?

Any random person can walk into a WCA competition and do a 5-minute Rubik's cube solve. But you don't really see random people walking into the Olympics and running the 1500m in 9 minutes, do you?

 

[Tempus]

Your analogy makes no sense, because in cubing everyone can do feet, not just people with handicaps preventing them from using their hands. This would mean, in your analogy that the wheelchair race in the Special Olympics could be done by anyone, disabled or not, as long as they use a wheelchair. Do you think that seems reasonable?

Yes, I think it's entirely reasonable, and here is why: I see no reason to think that an able-bodied Olympian would have an advantage over an Olympian without legs in an event where the legs cannot be used, so if they were engaged in a wheelchair race, it would be a more-or-less fair contest. Both events can be inclusive. The key is to have some events where strong legs provide no advantage, or in the case of the speedcubing world, some events where functional hands or functional eyes provide no advantage. This is a better solution than segregating people into groups and saying "You aren't allowed to compete at this, so go away."

It does make sense. Athletes with disabilities do sometimes compete in the Olympics. Are you implying the 3x3 with feet category is meant for those with disabilities? I think Dene's analogy is more aligned than yours is.

Given that my point was that inclusivity is good and exclusivity is bad, how could you construe that as an intent to exclude the able-bodied from foot-solving?

This is obviously a stupid idea, because there wouldn't be nearly enough people to make up the numbers in the handicapped WCAs. But the same reason makes it stupid for us to have separate events just for handicapped people, when hardly anyone would participate. In fact, at any given competition there would probably only be one, if any, handicapped person. Why have a completely different category just for them?

There shouldn't be different categories. Everyone should be in one category: Humans. The events should differ, however, so that they don't all just favor fast fingers. Let everyone try their hand (or foot) at every event if they are able.

Any random person can walk into a WCA competition and do a 5-minute Rubik's cube solve. But you don't really see random people walking into the Olympics and running the 1500m in 9 minutes, do you?

Random people generally can't solve a cube in 5 days, let alone 5 minutes.

 

[Dene]

There shouldn't be different categories. Everyone should be in one category: Humans. The events should differ, however, so that they don't all just favor fast fingers. Let everyone try their hand (or foot) at every event if they are able.

And what about someone with no limbs? What about someone who is completely paralysed other than their tongue? etc.

We just can't cater for everything, but what we can do is say "here's a 3x3, solve it any way you like". That is exactly what we have at the moment. How could we possibly be any more inclusive?

 

[Tempus]

And what about someone with no limbs? What about someone who is completely paralysed other than their tongue? etc.

I imagine they could still compete at FMC, provided they have some way to communicate their solution. What is your point?

We just can't cater for everything, but what we can do is say "here's a 3x3, solve it any way you like". That is exactly what we have at the moment. How could we possibly be any more inclusive?

By having other events, such as foot solving, such that one strength cannot dominate the entirety of the sport. This should be obvious from what has been said thus far, so are you perhaps kidding with me when you ask the question?

 

[Dene]

I imagine they could still compete at FMC, provided they have some way to communicate their solution. What is your point?

Unless I'm way off, you've been saying feet solving is worthy as a separate event in itself, because there are people that can't use their hands. Hence I ask what if someone can't use hands or feet? Should we have tongue solving as a separate event to cover this scenario?

By having other events, such as foot solving, such that one strength cannot dominate the entirety of the sport. This should be obvious from what has been said thus far, so are you perhaps kidding with me when you ask the question?

This is a significant deviation from your previous statements (in terms of the justification for keeping feet solving as a separate event). Regardless, your argument is still a slippery slope. Why let feet and hands dominate? Why not other body parts? How about an event where you use whistling to direct your dog to make moves on the cube to solve it? (not as outrageous as you might think)

 

[uberCuber]

Random people generally can't solve a cube in 5 days, let alone 5 minutes.

I think I made a mistake in using the word "random," but this is not my point. There are also plenty of people that can't run 1500m in 9 minutes either.

My point was that the Olympics are a very specialized competition. Only very very good athletes can actually qualify. I couldn't come close to meeting the 2012 olympics qualification standards, and I am actually reasonably in shape when it comes to running compared to many people. Not many physically disabled people are able to qualify to compete in the olympics, seeing as most physically able people cannot either. If they do not have the special olympics, they would not have anything.

For the WCA however, in most competitions, the only requirement for the main 3x3 event is that the person can solve it in under 10 minutes, which is plenty doable by someone with the physical disability of not being able to use certain limbs. Even the World Championship competition last year had a 3x3 time limit of 3 minutes, which, again, is plenty doable with just the feet. So without a separate Feet event, such disabled people can absolutely still compete in the WCA in the regular 3x3 event. So your Olympics analogy does not fit.

 

[Tim Major]

I imagine they could still compete at FMC, provided they have some way to communicate their solution. What is your point?


By having other events, such as foot solving, such that one strength cannot dominate the entirety of the sport. This should be obvious from what has been said thus far, so are you perhaps kidding with me when you ask the question?

My toes are currently bruised and cut, and I'm not very fast at 2 hands, so why not add elbow solving for me? Because everyone would think elbow solving is stupid. Similar to how everyone thinks foot solving is stupid. How about trying to argue for adding elbow solving? I think if people WANTED to add feet now, you'd realise there are no real arguments to add it.

 

[elrog]

There comes a point where the added inclusiveness you get from adding an event is not worth it. Unlike a disability, bruised and cut toes will heal (most of the time).

 

[Tempus]

Unless I'm way off, you've been saying feet solving is worthy as a separate event in itself, because there are people that can't use their hands. Hence I ask what if someone can't use hands or feet? Should we have tongue solving as a separate event to cover this scenario?

In many regulatory instances, a controlling authority must draw the line somewhere. It is natural to desire that the choice of where to draw the line is not arbitrary, but it is generally wiser to have an arbitrary point in the middle than to cling to one extreme or the other merely out of vanity.

By way of analogy, consider the mandated standards for the purity of drinking water. The higher the standards for purity, the more expensive the processing is, and it is a non-linear relationship. The non-arbitrary, extremist options are to have no standards at all (i.e. mud coming out of the tap), or perfect purity, i.e. not one molecule of anything other than H[SUB]2[/SUB]O ever comes out of the treatment plant. But the former is unacceptably toxic, and the latter is simply not feasible, as the entire output of the treatment plant would have to be diverted for testing, at which point there would be no usable water going to customers. The correct solution to to pick a point somewhere in the middle, a standard for water purity that is pure enough to be GRAS, but impure enough to allow everyone to afford water.

It may offend your sense of order in the universe, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.

This is a significant deviation from your previous statements (in terms of the justification for keeping feet solving as a separate event).

I've been rereading everything I have written thus far in this thread, and I have found no such inconsistencies. I suspect that you either misread something I wrote, or are confusing me with someone else.

Regardless, your argument is still a slippery slope. Why let feet and hands dominate? Why not other body parts? How about an event where you use whistling to direct your dog to make moves on the cube to solve it? (not as outrageous as you might think)

Your use of "slippery slope" in this instance would seem to be a logical fallacy, as you have not put forth a sound reason that the dominoes would continue to fall. After all, foot solving has been an event for many years, and not one supposedly ensuing domino has fallen yet. One can keep foot solving as an event without it leading to tongue solving, ergo "slippery slope" is nothing but unjustified rhetoric in your usage.

---

For the WCA however, in most competitions, the only requirement for the main 3x3 event is that the person can solve it in under 10 minutes, which is plenty doable by someone with the physical disability of not being able to use certain limbs. Even the World Championship competition last year had a 3x3 time limit of 3 minutes, which, again, is plenty doable with just the feet. So without a separate Feet event, such disabled people can absolutely still compete in the WCA in the regular 3x3 event. So your Olympics analogy does not fit.

I would draw a distinction between being able to partake in an event and being able to compete. Averaging under 3 minutes would enable you to partake in the world championship, but to be able to truly compete you would have to average somewhere around 8 seconds. Good luck doing that with your feet.

---

My toes are currently bruised and cut, and I'm not very fast at 2 hands, so why not add elbow solving for me? Because everyone would think elbow solving is stupid. Similar to how everyone thinks foot solving is stupid. How about trying to argue for adding elbow solving? I think if people WANTED to add feet now, you'd realise there are no real arguments to add it.

If everyone thinks that foot solving is stupid, then explain the poll results.

 

[Lucas Garron]

In many regulatory instances, a controlling authority must draw the line somewhere. It is natural to desire that the choice of where to draw the line is not arbitrary, but it is generally wiser to have an arbitrary point in the middle than to cling to one extreme or the other merely out of vanity.

I wish people post ing this forum always had that in mind.

While sometimes there are good reasons to go closer to the extremes (in particular, if it helps us make things consistent without hurting anyone too much), we usually have to draw the line somewhere in the middle.
Given how many preferences we have to balance, things like puzzle regulations or what puzzles to include have to be at least a little arbitrary.

 

[Dene]

I've been rereading everything I have written thus far in this thread, and I have found no such inconsistencies. I suspect that you either misread something I wrote, or are confusing me with someone else.

This is everything you've said thus far (minus unrelated stuff and the relevant previous quote to save space):

I feel like OH and Feet solving makes speedcubing a very inclusive sport. It means that those who don't have full use of both hands are still able to compete, and removing them capriciously would be analogous to discontinuing the special Olympics. It seems needlessly discriminatory.

If anything, we should be increasing inclusivity, such as by adding an event for the blind. I'm thinking blindfold solving with a Braille cube, mirror blocks, or other cube where the faces are differentiable by feel alone, and where you have to put the blindfold on before inspection. (I've tried solving my mirror blocks cube in total darkness, and it's entirely doable.)

This makes no sense. To continue the analogy, this comment is tantamount to saying that it's okay to discontinue the special Olympics because the physically disabled would still be able to compete against ordinary Olympians. Does that really seem like a reasonable position to you? Can you not see the inherent bias?

Yes, I think it's entirely reasonable, and here is why: I see no reason to think that an able-bodied Olympian would have an advantage over an Olympian without legs in an event where the legs cannot be used, so if they were engaged in a wheelchair race, it would be a more-or-less fair contest. Both events can be inclusive. The key is to have some events where strong legs provide no advantage, or in the case of the speedcubing world, some events where functional hands or functional eyes provide no advantage. This is a better solution than segregating people into groups and saying "You aren't allowed to compete at this, so go away."

Given that my point was that inclusivity is good and exclusivity is bad, how could you construe that as an intent to exclude the able-bodied from foot-solving?

There shouldn't be different categories. Everyone should be in one category: Humans. The events should differ, however, so that they don't all just favor fast fingers. Let everyone try their hand (or foot) at every event if they are able.

As you can see, other than a vague/ambiguous comment right at the end, you haven't really given much indication that you feel we should have different events so one "strength" doesn't dominate. But let us move on from that as you have made the point explicitly now anyway.

Regardless, I feel this is an empty argument. In 99.999% of cases speedsolving twisty puzzles is done with the hands (CAVEAT: I completely made up that statistic). Of course, technically we can use our feet to do it, but really, why would you? Other than as a silly "party trick"... or if you don't have any hands. But this is such a rare scenario that it doesn't make sense for us to cater to this group separately (in the same way we shouldn't have a para-WCA). Put on top of this the fact that we aren't stopping anyone from using their feet in the regular 3x3 event (or any other, might I point out), and the whole thing seems redundant to me.

In many regulatory instances, a controlling authority must draw the line somewhere. It is natural to desire that the choice of where to draw the line is not arbitrary, but it is generally wiser to have an arbitrary point in the middle than to cling to one extreme or the other merely out of vanity.

Naturally we need to come to an arbitrary middle ground. The question is where to draw the line, and what justification do we give for that? I don't see "some people don't have hands" as a strong reason for having an entirely separate event for feet solving. We already have a nice middle ground, as I have previously stated. In those extremely rare cases when someone doesn't have hands (does anyone have an example to refer to here?) we can happily accommodate those people with feet solving in the regular events.

Your use of "slippery slope" in this instance would seem to be a logical fallacy, as you have not put forth a sound reason that the dominoes would continue to fall. After all, foot solving has been an event for many years, and not one supposedly ensuing domino has fallen yet. One can keep foot solving as an event without it leading to tongue solving, ergo "slippery slope" is nothing but unjustified rhetoric in your usage.

You forget that there is no sound reasoning for adding feet as an event in the first place. The reasons you give now might be an attempt to retrospectively justify it, but originally feet became an official event as a joke (darn you Anders). If Anders hadn't responded to the question with "I can solve it with my feet!" we wouldn't have it as an official event now, plain and simple (and I dare anyone to disagree). Thus the reason the dominoes haven't fallen, is because your reasoning doesn't apply in the first place. I'm willing to bet if Anders had said "I can solve it with chopsticks!" that would be an official event now instead.

If the WRC chooses to justify the continued existence of feet solving by using the arguments you put forth, then I will insist upon a range of other events being added (e.g. braille solving), which would probably be more regularly justified than feet solving (I'm pretty sure I've heard of a blind person solving at a competition, but not a hand-less person).



tl,dr; speedsolving twisty puzzles is an activity which is specifically hand-based. Any variation from using the hands would only realistically be done in case of physical limitations. To come to a middle ground, we are already extremely lenient in allowing events to be done in ways suited to people that are physically disabled in some way (e.g. braille cube for a blind person, shaped stickers for a colour blind person, feet solving for someone with no hands).

Feet solving as a separate event is redundant and should not be included as a serious official WCA event. (I know people say "it doesn't all have to be serious, blah blah etc. etc." which I totally agree with, but fun events should be done unofficially on the side, not as part of officially sanctioned events).

btw in case anyone is wondering, I have taken feet solving relatively seriously in the past. I'm not voting because I think it's stupid, but I belong in the "I do feet and think it should be scrapped" category.

 

[Tim Major]

btw in case anyone is wondering, I have taken feet solving relatively seriously in the past. I'm not voting because I think it's stupid, but I belong in the "I do feet and think it should be scrapped" category.

translates to

btw in case anyone is wondering, feet OcR was a joke so I practised it years ago for wcaprofileswag

If feet had a 40 second NZ solver in 2008, do you think you would've ever practised it? Because I don't think you would've.

 

[qqwref]

I don't see a point in specifically making events to cater to disabled people who can't solve a cube quickly. In cubing we just dump everyone in one group and let the fastest person win, and if you aren't fast, well, too bad. The vast majority of people in competitions are nowhere near world-class at 3x3x3, and I think that's a good lesson - everyone can't be fast, and everyone certainly does not deserve to be fast. No matter how much you practice, you may never get to a world-class level. And *if* you're not fast, for whatever reason, you should either accept that or choose a different sport. It's not "discrimination" that some people are physically incapable of a sub-15 average.

One thing Tempus seems to be forgetting or ignoring is that the main 3x3x3 event is NOT "two-handed". (We do ask that people start and stop the timer with their hands, but that rule can easily be suspended for people who can't do that.) You can pretty much do whatever to solve it as fast as possible. If someone doesn't have the use of their hands but can use some other body parts to solve the cube in 10 seconds, they have just as much ability to compete as a normal 10-second solver. People have done OH and BLD solves in the 3x3x3 round, and there's no reason someone couldn't do feet as well (or something else entirely) if the organizers were OK with moving the mat around to enable that. Even if someone is blind, I'm pretty sure they could solve a touch cube during the normal 3x3x3 event. So the only discrimination there is, again, the fact that some people are slower - and that's by no means the fault of the event or the WCA.

 

[Dene]

btw in case anyone is wondering, feet OcR was a joke so I practised it years ago for wcaprofileswag

If feet had a 40 second NZ solver in 2008, do you think you would've ever practised it? Because I don't think you would've.

This is completely untrue. For a start, there wasn't a feet OcR until I did it, and I was the only one for years. And I have never cared about records as I was never close to getting any (apart from NRs which just don't mean anything for New Zealand). If I just wanted to fill up my WCA profile with records, I would have done 2x2, would I not? (Also I would have given myself many more opportunities to better my feet times, which are horrible).

I actually found feet solving fun (hence why I did 7x7 with feet and other crazy stuff like that), and practised because I thought I was a decent shot at becoming world class. In 2008, other than Anssi, sub1 was really fast, and I was around 1 minute. (my official times ended up really bad because I hadn't practised since I went to the USA).

However I realised that feet is retarded as an official event, and while I would still consider it fun to do (I don't think I ever got around to trying sq-1 with feet), I don't think it should be official.

 

[Sa967St]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

I've updated the pros and cons list in the OP. I've added most of the new pros and cons mentioned in this thread as well as added more detail to the existing ones. Points that can be both positive and negative are now under "Neutral outcomes of removing Feet".

The list is also on Github.

 

[cubizh]

If you want to make this list as complete as possible, I disagree with the usage of the term "media" only in the "Neutral outcomes" of Rubik's Cube: with feet potential removal.

Reading the neutrality statement, I am not sure media *at competitions* with (or without) feet is that frequent (or detailed/long) versus media coverage *in general* for speedcubing. I am interested in seeing examples of media coverage or news articles (in competition or not) that portray solving with feet and/or having feet as an event as a negative, disgusting or a joke thing, like pie or sausage eating contests often are.
If anyone can find them (again, good or bad), it would be interesting to read how they approach the actual subject, and I think it should be made mention of it in the "Pros" side, potentially along the lines of "Media wouldn't look in disgust to speedcubing as they currently are." or something of the sorts.

I took the time to look for media specifically about solving with feet to see how it is portrayed and I found the following examples, all from Rafael in Brazil, where they consistently (over the course of the past 6 years) give tv coverage to solving with feet, featured as a highly technical and amazing skill, broadcast mostly in general entertainment and more casual tv shows, much like they would feature a magic act, juggling number or memory feat:

Spoiler: Tv spots (with dates)

Spoiler: 04/mar/2009

[YOUTUBEHD]AUNcsOOg4y8[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 23/jul/2009

[YOUTUBEHD]uVtMH-UtqPY[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 27/jan/2010

[YOUTUBEHD]aWUO95r5Wq4[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 23/apr/2010

[YOUTUBEHD]UdA4dqt5gFQ[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 09/may/2010

[YOUTUBEHD]-HuO-J3Kobg[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 22/may/2010

[YOUTUBEHD]HmnniifDL3g[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 12/aug/2010

[YOUTUBEHD]iA6_ZDllzog[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 28/aug/2010

[YOUTUBEHD]8Snqoh_tUEg[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 11/feb/2011

[YOUTUBEHD]uw7JXuJQv1c[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 04/aug/2011

[YOUTUBEHD]Dm3pDnL3Jm0[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 21/apr/2012

[YOUTUBEHD]XijXUS6Y47I[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 10/nov/2012

[YOUTUBEHD]ZZFApH6pgyo[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 05/feb/2013

[YOUTUBEHD]a4pwvXeHIEo[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 06/mar/2013

[YOUTUBEHD]ki_qytHUNf0[/YOUTUBEHD]

Spoiler: 14/oct/2013

[YOUTUBEHD]RJAy63cs_WI[/YOUTUBEHD]

In most of these tv shows, Rafael is allowed to (obviously) solve but also talk a little about what he does and how he became so fast solving and how he progressed to feet as one alternative event and he oftens talks about the existence of rubik's cube competitions where fast people meet and solve all kinds of puzzles, and often the presenters are interested and completely unaware of this (as non-cubers often are).

Of course, even though these are multiple examples, it is only one very specific context. Brazil has a more laid back culture than most, which for something like speedcubing it can bring to light the funnier, more relaxed and easygoing aspects of the sport versus the more sporting/serious side of competing, which, of course, does not apply to other cultures. This last sentence is, evidently, my own personal oppinion and, undeniably, debatable.
Again, I would like to read more from other countries particularly regarding how media discusses competitions (with feet, but also, not) in programs like talk shows or news related spots. The rubik's cube in the media thread is quite sparse in details about this due mostly to the language barrier.

But to go back to my first paragraph, like it or not of feet, in Brazil, in my view from the outside, in what media is concerned, feet has kind of been an excuse to bring Rubik's Cube awareness to audiences that otherwise would not have the chance to see it and where the words "rubik's cube competition" are actually spoken on national tv. I also know for a fact that some people started competing because they saw these shows and became interested in cubing (in general). Aside from what has been previously stated in the thread, I think removing the event as official, it would certainly not take away the ability to perform feet solving on tv, which seems to be a good entry point for exposure in certain contexts, but it would probably illegitimize or make it more difficult to be opportune to invoke the competitive aspect of the sport, that has a lot of people involved all over the world, in a structured ranking, and is not just an isolated person that does it for fun alone.

Given this justification, lack of counterexamples where media has seriously hurt (or could hurt) the image of cubing, and given the fact that media alone is mentioned in this topic (which means it has its relevancy for feet), I would like to suggest to Sarah to move or, better yet, add a media statement to the "Negative outcomes of removing Feet:" with something like "Removing the event could debilitate the media exposure cubing currently has in certain parts of the world.".