• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Feet is officially unofficial

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
10,152
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
abc
Another event could be solving 3x3 as slow as possible, but when the judge gets bored they DNF you.
I like this. The goal would be to somehow keep the judge entertained while not finishing the solve, so they don't get bored and DNF you. This could inspire all kinds of awesome creativity!

:)
 

Etotheipi

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
489
Location
under your bed.
abc
I like this. The goal would be to somehow keep the judge entertained while not finishing the solve, so they don't get bored and DNF you. This could inspire all kinds of awesome creativity!

:)
it would introduce a whole new field of method development never seen before =D
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
10,152
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
How about the winner is the person who solves for the longest time without the judge getting mad?
I think the important thing is that you actually have to complete the solve successfully before receiving the DNF. So it might be quite a challenge - having the puzzle very close to solved so that when you can see the judge about to reach for a big red DNF button (which I figure you'd need for this event), you can quickly solve it and beat the judge just before you get DNFed.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
614
Location
The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multi stage...
I don't see the WCA replacing foot solving with anything. Why should they? Why would they? Moreover, I see OH and clock going next and however much people complain about what changes the WCA make in the future, the one thing we can almost guarantee is that your average cuber won't get a say in the matter.
I completely don’t see either of those things being removed. I just can’t conceivably understand that.
 

Etotheipi

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
489
Location
under your bed.
I think the important thing is that you actually have to complete the solve successfully before receiving the DNF. So it might be quite a challenge - having the puzzle very close to solved so that when you can see the judge about to reach for a big red DNF button (which I figure you'd need for this event), you can quickly solve it and beat the judge just before you get DNFed.
I think they should be able to DNF you out of nowhere without a button, otherwise you would just get within one move of solving, and then keep them entertained until they reach for the button, then quickly solve it. Maybe to fix this, you have to be doing something on the cube, and also that something should have to be more than just (R R')x100. Also maybe specialized judges so they don't DNF you before you even get close. (Or some rules for the judges)
 

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,561
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
I completely don’t see either of those things being removed. I just can’t conceivably understand that.
Applying the logic of removing Feet to Clock: people have asked for it to be removed. There is some half-hearted talk of introducing a process and criteria for adding and removing events, but at this point all that matters is what the people on the board think.

As far as OH a large part of the argument against Feet was that we already have another event that is solving the cube with some physical limitation, why do we need another. Continuing down the same line of logic, why have a physical limitation at all? It's really just a stunt.

Ultimately the only events that I believe are safe under the current set of rules are 3x3 and probably 3BLD, everything else exists at the pleasure of the Board.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,087
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
I apologize for my earlier removed post, it contained inappropriate content. I believe the points I was making are valid, and I will reiterate them here:

1. The decision the remove Feet was the wrong decision
2. The process of making the decision was handled poorly by the WCA
3. The WCA Board is not accountable to the community, this needs to be changed.
I’m curious about 2 and 3, how do you think the process should have gone? Why do you feel like the board should be “accountable to the community” and what does that entail?


Applying the logic of removing Feet to Clock: people have asked for it to be removed. There is some half-hearted talk of introducing a process and criteria for adding and removing events, but at this point all that matters is what the people on the board think.

As far as OH a large part of the argument against Feet was that we already have another event that is solving the cube with some physical limitation, why do we need another. Continuing down the same line of logic, why have a physical limitation at all? It's really just a stunt.

Ultimately the only events that I believe are safe under the current set of rules are 3x3 and probably 3BLD, everything else exists at the pleasure of the Board.
Sounds like someone really dislikes the board ;P
 

kubesolver

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
67
Ultimately the only events that I believe are safe under the current set of rules are 3x3 and probably 3BLD, everything else exists at the pleasure of the Board.
I am not so sure about 3x3. It is not entirely impossible that in the future Rubiks somehow wins exclusive right to hold official 3x3 competitions, and WCA will be left with everything else. ;)
 

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,561
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
I’m curious about 2 and 3, how do you think the process should have gone? Why do you feel like the board should be “accountable to the community” and what does that entail?
What do you think the purpose of the board is? It’s certainly not to make money. The proper purpose of the board is to serve the cubing community. That means that they should listen to what the community has to say, and not just to the loudmouths in the community.

As far as what that entails, I proposed a system on Github for allowing the community to vote. That was promptly shut down by Bob Burton, on the argument that it would require a unanimous decision of the board, he’s on the board and opposes the change, therefore it’s not worth discussing. I believe that shutting down discussion was an improper abuse of his power. I will recap what I currently believe should happen:

Every active participant in the WCA gets at least one vote. For competing at one competition in the last year you get one vote. For organizing one competition you get three votes. For serving as delegate at one competition you get six votes. For serving the WCA in an official capacity outside of competitions you get 10 votes. To be eligible to be elected to the board you need to be eligible to cast 25 votes. This ensures that the members of the board are active in the cubing community and not just in an ivory tower.

There is a fair argument to be made that this process should only be used for electing board members, and also a fair argument to be made that it should be used for major decisions. I initially made the case that the whole board should face re-election annually, I believe it was Kit Clement who made a reasonable case for continuity, and I now believe that ideally no more than 1/3 of the board should face re-election annually, although the low number of board members may mean that number needs to be 1/2 so that terms are not too long (2-3 years is fine)

There should be two classes of decisions: most decisions are fairly minor, others are major. The example I used of minor decisions was permitting stickerless cubes. Basically anything that can be reasonably be construed to be a clarification of existing rules. Those can be handled by the board. Major decisions, such as changes in the organization structure (how decisions are made) or adding or removing events should be subject to a community vote.

Minor decisions can be left up to the board, and major decisions that do not have a clear majority of support as well. Phrase the proposed change as “if [x] change is made, on a scale from 1 being very upset and possibly boycotting WCA events if the change IS enacted to 10 possibly boycotting WCA events if the change is IS NOT enacted, rate your sentiment.”

If the average of the votes tallied is more than 6 the measure passes, if the average is lower than 4 the measure does not pass. In between the board makes the decision. Voting for board members should be done in a ranked choice system, with nominees who meet the basic qualifications for community involvement, age of majority, and clean criminal record being offered. If there was an issue with too many candidates (the opposite seems to be more of a concern) then possibly grant incumbents who qualify an automatic spot on the ballot, and limit the rest of the ballot to 10 candidates, with the highest ranked non-incumbents by vote total (proxy for community involvement) as outlined above.

I am definitely upset that the WRC teased a community poll and did not do it. Their defense is that they didn’t have time, which I can understand: I’m bad at time management too sometimes. But the only reason for them to continue to refuse to hold the poll is that they are afraid of learning that they made an objectively unpopular decision that should be reconsidered. The poll should be held promptly, and ideally action on Feet should be delayed until the full results of that poll are published.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,556
Location
An uncolonized crater of the planet Mars
I think they should be able to DNF you out of nowhere without a button, otherwise you would just get within one move of solving, and then keep them entertained until they reach for the button, then quickly solve it. Maybe to fix this, you have to be doing something on the cube, and also that something should have to be more than just (R R')x100. Also maybe specialized judges so they don't DNF you before you even get close. (Or some rules for the judges)
There should be a DNF foot pedal, so that the competition won't see the judge about to DNF you. And when someone gets DNFed red lights have to flash throughout the building. And if someone gets a DNF really quickly, showing there lack of ability to entertain, everyone has to gather around them and mock them and put a DNF sign on their face like in the ColorfulPockets vid.
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
10,152
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
There should be a DNF foot pedal, so that the competition won't see the judge about to DNF you. And when someone gets DNFed red lights have to flash throughout the building. And if someone gets a DNF really quickly, showing there lack of ability to entertain, everyone has to gather around them and mock them and put a DNF sign on their face like in the ColorfulPockets vid.
Someone really needs to run this as an unofficial event at their next competition. And take video.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,087
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
What do you think the purpose of the board is? It’s certainly not to make money. The proper purpose of the board is to serve the cubing community. That means that they should listen to what the community has to say, and not just to the loudmouths in the community.

As far as what that entails, I proposed a system on Github for allowing the community to vote. That was promptly shut down by Bob Burton, on the argument that it would require a unanimous decision of the board, he’s on the board and opposes the change, therefore it’s not worth discussing. I believe that shutting down discussion was an improper abuse of his power. I will recap what I currently believe should happen:

Every active participant in the WCA gets at least one vote. For competing at one competition in the last year you get one vote. For organizing one competition you get three votes. For serving as delegate at one competition you get six votes. For serving the WCA in an official capacity outside of competitions you get 10 votes. To be eligible to be elected to the board you need to be eligible to cast 25 votes. This ensures that the members of the board are active in the cubing community and not just in an ivory tower.

There is a fair argument to be made that this process should only be used for electing board members, and also a fair argument to be made that it should be used for major decisions. I initially made the case that the whole board should face re-election annually, I believe it was Kit Clement who made a reasonable case for continuity, and I now believe that ideally no more than 1/3 of the board should face re-election annually, although the low number of board members may mean that number needs to be 1/2 so that terms are not too long (2-3 years is fine)

There should be two classes of decisions: most decisions are fairly minor, others are major. The example I used of minor decisions was permitting stickerless cubes. Basically anything that can be reasonably be construed to be a clarification of existing rules. Those can be handled by the board. Major decisions, such as changes in the organization structure (how decisions are made) or adding or removing events should be subject to a community vote.

Minor decisions can be left up to the board, and major decisions that do not have a clear majority of support as well. Phrase the proposed change as “if [x] change is made, on a scale from 1 being very upset and possibly boycotting WCA events if the change IS enacted to 10 possibly boycotting WCA events if the change is IS NOT enacted, rate your sentiment.”

If the average of the votes tallied is more than 6 the measure passes, if the average is lower than 4 the measure does not pass. In between the board makes the decision. Voting for board members should be done in a ranked choice system, with nominees who meet the basic qualifications for community involvement, age of majority, and clean criminal record being offered. If there was an issue with too many candidates (the opposite seems to be more of a concern) then possibly grant incumbents who qualify an automatic spot on the ballot, and limit the rest of the ballot to 10 candidates, with the highest ranked non-incumbents by vote total (proxy for community involvement) as outlined above.

I am definitely upset that the WRC teased a community poll and did not do it. Their defense is that they didn’t have time, which I can understand: I’m bad at time management too sometimes. But the only reason for them to continue to refuse to hold the poll is that they are afraid of learning that they made an objectively unpopular decision that should be reconsidered. The poll should be held promptly, and ideally action on Feet should be delayed until the full results of that poll are published.
Part of being able to do what’s best for the community involves making decisions which may not be liked. I think the main reason bob shut down your discussion is because your system just doesn’t work. Very few people even willingly apply to the board seeing how much time you have to put into it with no compensation. Turning it into a popularity contest isn’t a great idea. I think a better approach would be to discuss trying to limit some of the powers the board and other committees have and trying to get the community more involved.

I do agree that it’s unfortunate that the survey was not held but unless you have somehow read the minds of the WRC I don’t think you have a right to say that. The process to remove feet has already been going on for a while and I don’t think it would be wise to continue delaying it in order to wait for a survey that may not even accurately reflect what the community wants. Even if the poll is held the results will just cause more contention, arguing, and name calling. If you really do want feet added to the wca I would reccomend discussing tiered events since lucas does support the idea.
 

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,561
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
Part of being able to do what’s best for the community involves making decisions which may not be liked. I think the main reason bob shut down your discussion is because your system just doesn’t work. Very few people even willingly apply to the board seeing how much time you have to put into it with no compensation. Turning it into a popularity contest isn’t a great idea. I think a better approach would be to discuss trying to limit some of the powers the board and other committees have and trying to get the community more involved.

I do agree that it’s unfortunate that the survey was not held but unless you have somehow read the minds of the WRC I don’t think you have a right to say that. The process to remove feet has already been going on for a while and I don’t think it would be wise to continue delaying it in order to wait for a survey that may not even accurately reflect what the community wants. Even if the poll is held the results will just cause more contention, arguing, and name calling. If you really do want feet added to the wca I would reccomend discussing tiered events since lucas does support the idea.
My system doesn’t have to work: it was a starting point. “Something should change” rarely if ever results in positive change. “Here’s an idea for how to change something” can lead to productive discussion about the strengths and flaws of the current system and the proposed solution. Shutting down the discussion because “what we have is good enough” is also a bad idea. Saying “what we have is good because [xyz]” is fine. But he actually shut down discussion of how the office that he holds could be reformed to prevent abuse of that office.

How do you propose limiting the power of the Board? I definitely see the argument for having a strong board that can make unpopular decisions, but limiting that either means making the board members electable by more people or handing the decisions over to those people. I don’t believe that a casual cuber who went to one competition in the last year should have as strong a voice in that democratized system as someone who put a lot of work into cubing, which means that some variation on my plan is probably the best option: there needs to be a way of gauging how invested an individual is in cubing and the WCA.

Someone on the WRC (I don’t remember who right off) has stated that the reason for not holding the survey was lack of time. They have time now. A well-written survey is really the only way to gauge what the community wants. I believe that if the survey went out today the result would be about 70% in favor of keeping Feet, but I may be wrong.

If Feet was added as a second-tier event that would be better than nothing, but it’s really a silly idea. There is already precedent for Feet not being included in championships, demoting it to a lower tier does nothing except tell the people who like it, once again, that they aren’t worth as much as the people who don’t like it.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,087
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
My system doesn’t have to work: it was a starting point. “Something should change” rarely if ever results in positive change. “Here’s an idea for how to change something” can lead to productive discussion about the strengths and flaws of the current system and the proposed solution. Shutting down the discussion because “what we have is good enough” is also a bad idea. Saying “what we have is good because [xyz]” is fine. But he actually shut down discussion of how the office that he holds could be reformed to prevent abuse of that office.

How do you propose limiting the power of the Board? I definitely see the argument for having a strong board that can make unpopular decisions, but limiting that either means making the board members electable by more people or handing the decisions over to those people. I don’t believe that a casual cuber who went to one competition in the last year should have as strong a voice in that democratized system as someone who put a lot of work into cubing, which means that some variation on my plan is probably the best option: there needs to be a way of gauging how invested an individual is in cubing and the WCA.

Someone on the WRC (I don’t remember who right off) has stated that the reason for not holding the survey was lack of time. They have time now. A well-written survey is really the only way to gauge what the community wants. I believe that if the survey went out today the result would be about 70% in favor of keeping Feet, but I may be wrong.

If Feet was added as a second-tier event that would be better than nothing, but it’s really a silly idea. There is already precedent for Feet not being included in championships, demoting it to a lower tier does nothing except tell the people who like it, once again, that they aren’t worth as much as the people who don’t like it.
I think the reason your discussion was shut down is it’s just not a good starting point and has lots of flaws, if you had other ideas it would be more appropriate to post individual issues on how things could change.

One of the best ways in my opinion would be to create better systems for making decisions, for example there is a discussion on GitHub right now for creating a system to remove events. You can build community input into these systems as well if you would like to do so.

like I mentioned earlier, I don’t think a survey would benefit anyone at this point.

well if you proposed a system which allows second tier events to become first tier events after meeting specific criteria then you could be in business :p
 
Last edited:

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,561
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
I think the reason your discussion was **** down is it’s just not a good starting point and has lots of flaws, if you had other ideas it would be more appropriate to post individual issues on how things could change.
What flaws? The only concrete flaw that was pointed out was that there should be more continuity than would be provided by re-electing the whole board every year, so I have amended my position to address that.

One of the best ways in my opinion would be to create better systems for making decisions, for example there is a discussion on GitHub right now for creating a system to remove events. You can build community input into these systems as well if you would like to do so.
I have contributed to that discussion, as you are well aware.

well if you proposed a system which allows second tier events to become first tier events after meeting specific criteria then you could be in business :p
Why on earth is a system of formal second-tier events preferable to the current system, where there are just events, some are less popular than others, and that’s ok?

Furthermore, it’s getting hard to find anything on Github anymore with you spamming inconsequential rule clarification threads.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
614
Location
The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multi stage...
Hello everybody.

Because of the unfortunate events leading to feet’s impending removal, we would like to stand strong. Please make your last solve of 2019 a recorded 3x3 with Feet solve. Please share this message all across social media to get the word around to pay respects to this beloved event. We need to stand strong. With videos of feet solving, there is nothing we can’t do.

Thank you very much.
 

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top