[quote:3m569rcs]9p) For each round of an event, at least [b:3m569rcs]50% of competitors must not proceed to the next round[/b:3m569rcs].[/quote:3m569rcs] Rounds are made for selection. Giving free chances of breaking records with useless rounds is not competition.

I would say that cutting 50% is too much. People are there to have fun. Having more rounds of an event is fun. Yes, having too little competition to get to the next round is bad, but I would argue that we don't need to restrict to 50%. But that logic, we should just limit to 2 rounds and take the top 10. Actually, this might be a good place where we can further discourage closed competitions. Two sets of rules regarding the number of rounds and the number of competitors. For example, for open competitions, the number of competitors needed for the number of rounds are: At least 1 competitor for 1 round At least 16 competitors for 2 rounds At least 32 competitors for 3 rounds At least 100 competitors for 4 rounds For each round, at least 8 competitors must not advance. For close competitions: At least 1 competitor for 1 round At least 25 competitors for 2 rounds At least 50 competitors for 3 rounds For each round, at least 15 competitors must not advance. Of course, another alternative is for the organizer to tell the WCA board upfront what they plan on doing and they can adjust down if they want, but can't adjust up.

[quote="BryanLogan":3sg3im5t]People are there to have fun. Having more rounds of an event is fun.[/quote:3sg3im5t] I can only agree with that. To my mind it should be up to the competition's organisers to decide how to handle their rounds under the given regulations. I see no need for any change there.

[quote="SebastienAuroux":2nt7jazu][quote="BryanLogan":2nt7jazu]People are there to have fun. Having more rounds of an event is fun.[/quote:2nt7jazu] I can only agree with that. To my mind it should be up to the competition's organisers to decide how to handle their rounds under the given regulations. I see no need for any change there.[/quote:2nt7jazu] I agree strongly with these statements. A competition should involve as much cubing as possible for everybody, especially as many people are unable to go to a lot of competitions. By reducing the amount of competitors that are allowed to go to a following round there is little to be gained. It should be up to an organiser how to deal with this. I for examplethink that competitors, regardless of their times, should be able to compete in several rounds of certain events if the schedule allows it. Naturally there are occasions on which this is not possible and there must be strict cut off points (WC for instance). Gilles suggests that it is not competition if there are lots of rounds, but that is simply illogical as those that get good times are the ones that have many opportunities in each competition anyway. By allowing fewer people to advance to later rounds we aren't preventing fast people from having more attempts at all, we are just preventing other people from joining in on the fun, which isn't necessary. As for the amount of people needed to hold a certain amount of rounds I think the limits are fine just as they are now. Perhaps in special cases this can be discussed with the board, but for the average competition I don't see why it should change.

Charlie, you don't see any issues at all with having 31 competitors and then 30 in the next round and 29 in the round after that? Perhaps some cutoff times could be implemented. Like all competitors who get sub-40 go to the 2nd round, and all who get sub-25 go to the third. I think that way is much more fair, plus it allows people to to know what they need to advance. And I'm fine not eliminating anyone as long as they meet the requirement and the requirement isn't 10 minutes.

[quote="BryanLogan":k6yrkqat]Charlie, you don't see any issues at all with having 31 competitors and then 30 in the next round and 29 in the round after that? [/quote:k6yrkqat] I don't see any problems with this. There is still competition, granted it reduces the pressure in the first two rounds. But you would still have be faster than 31 competitors in order to win. [quote="BryanLogan":k6yrkqat] Perhaps some cutoff times could be implemented. Like all competitors who get sub-40 go to the 2nd round, and all who get sub-25 go to the third. I think that way is much more fair, plus it allows people to to know what they need to advance. And I'm fine not eliminating anyone as long as they meet the requirement and the requirement isn't 10 minutes.[/quote:k6yrkqat] There is another [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=822:k6yrkqat]thread[/url:k6yrkqat]that handles this question. What you suggest are already covered by the current regulations and each organizer could choose that format for their competition. The specific cutoff limits should not be regulated at all.

[quote="BryanLogan":2swbu4gf]Charlie, you don't see any issues at all with having 31 competitors and then 30 in the next round and 29 in the round after that? Perhaps some cutoff times could be implemented. Like all competitors who get sub-40 go to the 2nd round, and all who get sub-25 go to the third. I think that way is much more fair, plus it allows people to to know what they need to advance. And I'm fine not eliminating anyone as long as they meet the requirement and the requirement isn't 10 minutes.[/quote:2swbu4gf] What if you have a competition with rookies who all average like a minute? Nobody would make the cut? What if just one person (me, for example) makes the cut? I don't see that working...

[quote="BryanLogan":2rm7pps9]Charlie, you don't see any issues at all with having 31 competitors and then 30 in the next round and 29 in the round after that? Perhaps some cutoff times could be implemented. Like all competitors who get sub-40 go to the 2nd round, and all who get sub-25 go to the third. I think that way is much more fair, plus it allows people to to know what they need to advance. And I'm fine not eliminating anyone as long as they meet the requirement and the requirement isn't 10 minutes.[/quote:2rm7pps9] Well no actually, I don't. What IS the issue? Sure, time wise it can put a strain on the schedule but that's up to the individual organisers for the kind of competition they want to run. That's the only negative I can see. Just because some people are faster than others, doesn't mean they should necessarily have more opportunities to compete in rounds. There are competitions where that is acceptable, as I mentioned in my previous post, but for casual, relaxed and most importantly fun competitions, the more the merrier in my opinion. There is so little to be gained from preventing people from competing. I can see however, that if people know they will advance unless they are in last place, there is less of a competitive edge to the proceedings, but in my opinion this just leads to a friendlier atmosphere. A day (or two) where everybody can participate in the most events possible encourages a lot of community spirit, rather than people travelling to a competition, doing one round of a couple of things, then having to help out for the faster people who do get to do 2 or 3 rounds. As for the cut offs you suggest, I think this is impractical. The cut off system currently in place (which can be adjusted accordingly to suit the number of competitors) i.e. 40 proceed is fine. In different competitions there are different standards. Sub-15 for the final might mean 2 competitors at one competition but 15 at another. It's terribly inconsistent and means that if everybody struggles on particularly difficult scrambles, therefore impacting their times, they won't proceed and a final could have relatively few people in it. It is also difficult for the organisation team to predict how much time to allow for rounds as they won't be sure how many are going through.

[quote="MadsMohr":gb4lfwvh] [quote="BryanLogan":gb4lfwvh] Perhaps some cutoff times could be implemented. Like all competitors who get sub-40 go to the 2nd round, and all who get sub-25 go to the third. I think that way is much more fair, plus it allows people to to know what they need to advance. And I'm fine not eliminating anyone as long as they meet the requirement and the requirement isn't 10 minutes.[/quote:gb4lfwvh] There is another [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=822:gb4lfwvh]thread[/url:gb4lfwvh]that handles this question. What you suggest are already covered by the current regulations and each organizer could choose that format for their competition. The specific cutoff limits should not be regulated at all.[/quote:gb4lfwvh] Who goes to the next round is a combination of criteria and numbers. If you say everyone who is under a certain time advances, and everyone gets under that time, you still have to eliminate someone. So fixing this problem will probably result in regulations that cover both scenarios. Also, the current regulation allow this to happen, but the current regulations also allow for people to advance based on nationality, if they pay a bribe to the organizers, if they can flip a coin to "heads". I think that needs to be fixed.

[quote="BryanLogan":1peccret]Who goes to the next round is a combination of criteria and numbers. If you say everyone who is under a certain time advances, and everyone gets under that time, you still have to eliminate someone. So fixing this problem will probably result in regulations that cover both scenarios. Also, the current regulation allow this to happen, but the current regulations also allow for people to advance based on nationality, if they pay a bribe to the organizers, if they can flip a coin to "heads". I think that needs to be fixed.[/quote:1peccret] This is exactly why I linked to the other thread were that question are handled. This thread is about amount and not criteria. Perhaps the two thread could be merged?

[quote="BryanLogan":3e6z8kwq]Charlie, you don't see any issues at all with having 31 competitors and then 30 in the next round and 29 in the round after that?[/quote:3e6z8kwq] Exactly. See http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/res ... ults=1#333 (Pyraminx and Square-1 for example) nice event in a friendly cube party, a non sense in an official competition. If you want useless rounds, let's just stop hypocrisy and remove article 9p. By the way, if rounds are not for selection, you can drop article 9m too. There's no reason for not allowing 4 rounds with 10 competitors.

[quote="Gilles":1jppsbtd][quote="BryanLogan":1jppsbtd]Charlie, you don't see any issues at all with having 31 competitors and then 30 in the next round and 29 in the round after that?[/quote:1jppsbtd] Exactly. See http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/res ... ults=1#333 (Pyraminx and Square-1 for example) nice event in a friendly cube party, a non sense in an official competition. If you want useless rounds, let's just stop hypocrisy and remove article 9p. By the way, if rounds are not for selection, you can drop article 9m too. There's no reason for not allowing 4 rounds with 10 competitors.[/quote:1jppsbtd] Why can't it be both a competition and a friendly cube party? It's the friendly atmosphere that got me interested in traveling to competitions all over Europe, not the fierce competition.

[quote="MadsMohr":3hp2jgif] Why can't it be both a competition and a friendly cube party? It's the friendly atmosphere that got me interested in traveling to competitions all over Europe, not the fierce competition.[/quote:3hp2jgif] Exactly the same thing for me. There is room for competition between the top cubers if they want that but it also allows a friendly atmosphere for those who just want to do a lot of solves and cube a lot. Preventing people from progressing to further rounds doesn't stop the faster people from having a lot of attempts, which is where the fierce competition for fast times lie anyway. In my opinion, having a 6 person final that is extremely tense just makes for a less appealing atmosphere for less experienced cubers (whether in that final or not) and achieves nothing in the way of keeping cubing a friendly sport. A large final for instance allows for both a nice relaxed atmosphere AND competition.

This is how the WCA presents itself on its homepage: [quote:3l0fqw4a] The goal of the World Cube Association is to have [b:3l0fqw4a] more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions.[/b:3l0fqw4a] The spirit of the World Cube Association is that [b:3l0fqw4a] people from all over the world have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike.[/b:3l0fqw4a] [size=85:3l0fqw4a]Source: [url:3l0fqw4a]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/node/11[/url:3l0fqw4a][/size:3l0fqw4a] [/quote:3l0fqw4a] I stand 100% behind that statement and the idea of introducing hard, strict qualification limits seems totally incongruent with that spirit. As it is, cubing already has a rather elitist image. I often hear people who average around 40-50 seconds or even faster and are reluctant to go to competitions because they feel they're too slow to participate. That can't be good, right? If we're going to give those people just one round because they're not almost world class, that isn't going to help our cause.

Exactly what Lars and Charlie say, more rounds with many people = more fun for more people.

My conclusion for WCA Regulations is to not change anything. We limit the number of rounds, there is not need to also have strict limits on how many competitors will proceed. Let us stick to 1 person not proceeding.

So remove the article about eliminating 1 competitor. It is stupid. When organizer wants to offer useless rounds, and keep as many competitors as possible, example: keep 32 ou of 33 competitors... Why not 33? Round is not for selection, why eliminate 1? See what I mean?

[quote:z3tll75h]Round is not for selection, why eliminate 1? See what I mean?[/quote:z3tll75h] Rounds are there to: 1) enable every competitor to set personal results (=fun) 2) select competitors who proceed to the next round or who win (=competition) We set a minimum of 1 to achieve 1) and 2). There are not many competitions where the number of proceeding competitors is exactly 1. But it is within the rules that we defined. Some people may not like it, but the competitors in that round do.

Ok, you don't see what I mean. I was talking about Article 9p, the minimum number of people not proceeding. It is not about people proceeding.

[quote:1jldaa1d]Ok, you don't see what I mean.[/quote:1jldaa1d] Sorry, there is a word NOT missing in my message. [quote:1jldaa1d]There are not many competitions where the number of NOT proceeding competitors is exactly 1. But it is within the rules that we defined.[/quote:1jldaa1d]

[quote="Ron":3e5fqmn0]There are not many competitions where the number of not proceeding competitors is exactly 1. But it is within the rules that we defined.[/quote:3e5fqmn0] Of course it is within the rules. But I am questioning the rules. The spirit of article 9p was that rounds must be selective. That's why I proposed to make it more strict with a 50% quota, compatible with what we've seen in most serious competitions. It seems I'm the only one to think fake competition rounds are anti-fun. So be it, forget my proposal. What does article 9p achieve? Nothing. It's just awkward. Round 1: 1003 competitors. Round 2: 1002 competitors. Round 3: 1001 competitors. Final round: 1000 competitors. This is not selection. So, let's be logical and remove 9p.

In most sports you see that at least one person/team does not proceed to a next round. It could be one or more. I think half would be very strict. I think one is indeed a bit low. There has to be a limit. I would not mind to change it to two (or three or four). But then it would not solve very much. I think with the current limitation of number of rounds we make sure that noone is doing 100 rounds of one event. So I would like to keep it this way.

Totally agreed with Gilles. I don't see the point why people want to make many rounds for everyone. If you're not into the final, then you have to practice more for the next time. And that could be a reachable goal for you, for the next time. And you would have the pressure in the semi final because you want to qualify. That is fun ! For me, fun is not solving as many cubes as possible in competition waiting for the perfect/lucky solve which could be your official personal best. For me, it is not "more fun" at all to be sure for everyone-2 people from the beginning to go to the final. It's boring. It seems that we are the only one to see competitions as competitions. Most of the people see it as a cube meeting where the goal is to have the best ranking on the WCA website afterwards.

Actually, most people don"t have a chance to get the first place in a competion (that's my case). When I come to competition, I want to see other cubers, and I compete mostly against myself, not against others. I also come to meet other competitors. I'm pretty sure many cubers feel the same - At least, it is the same for many people I frequently meet in competitions. However, the 50% rule isn't that bad. Many competition are more strict than that. But I don't see any reason to include this into regulations. This is an useless restriction. We should just let people compete the way they want to. It's up to the organisator to choose if a competition must be higly selective or not. We shouldn't impose our vision of the competition to others, but make the regulation as fair as possible and managable. And this regulation doesn't make the competition more fair or easier to organize.

On this point, I agree with you, deadalnix. But some "problems" occur then... For instance, if there are a lot of competitors in the final, there is not enough judge/scramblers remaining. So the organiser is forced to do two groups, with different scrambles. And I don't really like this idea for a 3x3 final, because it is not fair between the competitors. Again, it depends if you see competitions as competitions between competitors or as against the ranking on the WCA website. For me, the rule "the final should have at most 50% of the registered competitors for the event" is good enough.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":248hfet2]And I don't really like this idea for a 3x3 final, because it is not fair between the competitors.[/quote:248hfet2] Why are two groups in the final more fair for other events? Many competitions only have 1 round of some events, and people may be in two groups. [/quote] [quote="Edouard Chambon":248hfet2] For me, the rule "the final should have at most 50% of the registered competitors for the event" is good enough.[/quote:248hfet2] "Registered competitor" is a bad criteria. Does this include "no shows"? Besides, this rule doesn't work for events that have 1 round. What about when there's 3 rounds? Does each round have to cut 50% each time, or just 50% from the registered?

[quote="BryanLogan":276fo9rs][quote="Edouard Chambon":276fo9rs]And I don't really like this idea for a 3x3 final, because it is not fair between the competitors.[/quote:276fo9rs] Why are two groups in the final more fair for other events? Many competitions only have 1 round of some events, and people may be in two groups. [/quote:276fo9rs] Because in these events you don't have enough scramblers, most of the time. Basically anyone can scramble a 3x3, which is not true for square-1 or megaminx or clock, for example. (and these events have fewer people, which makes things even worse) [quote:276fo9rs] [quote="Edouard Chambon":276fo9rs] For me, the rule "the final should have at most 50% of the registered competitors for the event" is good enough.[/quote:276fo9rs] "Registered competitor" is a bad criteria. Does this include "no shows"? Besides, this rule doesn't work for events that have 1 round. What about when there's 3 rounds? Does each round have to cut 50% each time, or just 50% from the registered?[/quote:276fo9rs] Edouard's text is very clear saying that the [b:276fo9rs]FINAL[/b:276fo9rs] round should have at most 50% of the competitors. I agree with you that it should be 50% of the # of competitors in the first round, because many people don't show up. The rule is of course not meant for events with just one round...

Thank you Pedro. Sometimes I don't see how to be more clear. If you prefer it like that: "it's forbidden to do more than one group in a final of an event which had more than one round". Sounds good.

That's sound fair.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":14hplqie] If you prefer it like that: "it's forbidden to do more than one group in a final of an event which had more than one round". [/quote:14hplqie] That seems like a completely arbitrary rule. If I have a single round of 4x4, it's OK to have separate groups for the final, but once I move to 2 rounds, then having separate groups for the final is bad? If having separate groups for the final is such an awful situation (which I don't think it is), then it should be prevented at all times. For 3x3 finals, I do grouping, but I sort the groups by their prior round results, so that the people most likely to take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are in the same group. (I know some people will argue that if someone doesn't stand a chance at getting third, we shouldn't move them to the final anyways....) A lot of time, my volunteers are people who practice, so even if I cut 50% of the competitors, many of the judges and scramblers are in the final round anyways. Organizationwise, it's best to have 2 groups to get stuff done faster.

The Board's decision for this year is to keep the current regulations for this subject. I think our two main design goals are: 'fairness' and 'fun for everyone', because our hobby is for slow and fast cubers. That includes a rather liberal regulation on qualification for next rounds. We will however inform WCA delegates on applying this regulation a bit more consistently.

What do you mean by applying this regulation a bit more consistently ?

[quote:17f2jdub]What do you mean by applying this regulation a bit more consistently ?[/quote:17f2jdub] Consistent as in "consistent across competitions". So not one competition doing it this way and another doing it another way. We DID contact the WCA delegates of the n-1 competitions regarding this subject.

[quote="Ron":11o2w2pr][quote:11o2w2pr]What do you mean by applying this regulation a bit more consistently ?[/quote:11o2w2pr] Consistent as in "consistent across competitions". So not one competition doing it this way and another doing it another way. We DID contact the WCA delegates of the n-1 competitions regarding this subject.[/quote:11o2w2pr] Sorry, but I don't get this at all. Doing what this or another way? The way I see it there only two ways to apply this rule: you either follow it or you don't follow it. If you let n-1 people through, you follow the rule. If you let 50% of the people through, you follow the rule. If you let 8 people through, you follow the rule (provided there were more than 8 in the round before). All three decisions are equally valid under the current regulations and hence none of them should be regarded as "inferior". I was a delegate at one of those so-called "n-1 competitions". I don't really see what I have to do with this. My responsibility is approving the events and event formats. Letting n-1 people through is allowed, end of story. My or other people's personal preference shouldn't matter. If the organizer thinks he or she can handle it, I don't see any reason to stop him or her from doing that. Right now it almost seems there is an unwritten rule but nobody knows what that rule is. I want same clarity, please! I think you should either make a decision or leave the comments to yourself (or to this forum to discuss a change of the rule).

[quote="Edouard Chambon":2f64kzvo]Most of the people see it as a cube meeting where the goal is to have the best ranking on the WCA website afterwards.[/quote:2f64kzvo] Is there anything wrong with them thinking this?

Hi all, Here is a new proposal. For each round at least one third of the competitors must not proceed to the next round. See article 9p2 in the version on the server. We have only day left before finalisation, so please send your feedback asap. Thanks, Ron

Woah woah woah. You're about to change a rule and give us a single day's notice? Most people check this forum much less than once per day, couldn't you of suggested this for next year instead of pushing it through without anyone commenting on it? I preferred your original suggestion to leave the rules as they were and allow the organiser/delegates to make this decision with guidance from WCA board members.

I couldn't agree more with what Lars said. After considerable criticism for an "n-1 competition" I feel I should comment on this matter. There seems to be some discontent regarding such a format, which is unnecessary as it is completely allowed according to the regulations. The bottom line is that regardless of personal preferences (which appear to be getting in the way here) there should be a rule that can be followed to the letter, even if this is difficult for the board to agree on. The hobby we are all so fond of is growing so quickly that organisers need clearer guidelines. I don't want to feel like I've done something wrong when all I've done is read the regulations and do precisely what IS allowed. My reasons for having this format: 1) It is a friendly competition, not a fierce and heated competition (I think there is room for stricter cut off points in larger events where competitors win "titles" such as WC or EC) 2) I don't think that because you are slower than other competitors you should have fewer opportunities in which to compete (I understand that it can be a motivator to reach semi finals etc, but again, this is for a more relaxed environment) 3) I want to encourage the cubing scene as much as possible in England, which I feel has happened due to such formats as new competitors are involved throughout the day(s). 4) It doesn't give faster people any higher chance of breaking records, which seems to be implied, as those people would make later rounds anyway. Why can't everybody just have the same amount of attempts to break personal bests? 5) Travelling. I know people shouldn't expect additional rounds of things because they are travelling far, it would be over the top to suggest that as a reason for an n-1 format but I am sympathetic to it. If the time schedule allows for more people to progress then why not? 6) This n-1 situation was only for 3x3x3 for the reasons outlined above, and because it is obviously the most popular puzzle. Every other event has a stricter cut off) The reasons I can think of for not having this format: 1) Personal preference for fiercer competition 2) The idea that it makes a competition not look like a competition or very "professional" (the whole casual vs. formal competition debate) 3) Time schedule not allowing it While I have gone into some detail there, it is predominantly personal preference that appears to dictate the formats of competitions. As we will forever be divided on the matter, this cannot continue as we are not really to say whose preference is the correct one. There absolutely needs to be a clear cut regulation that we can follow to avoid feelings of discontent over this issue. If organisers are never supposed to use the n-1 format, why is it even mentioned? When is an appropriate time to implement it? Leaving things as they are and having organisers and delegates liaising with the board members seems impractical and unnecessary as opinions differ greatly on the matter and there would still be no regulation to follow. What Ron proposes is a good idea. I would suggest that at least 25% must be cut for each round. This seems like a reasonable limit and avoids an "n-1 competition". This allows for the minimum of 25% to provide a more relaxed and fun competition, while the cut off can be raised for events that are necessary.

[quote="Ron":2m3qrahq]Hi all, Here is a new proposal. For each round at least one third of the competitors must not proceed to the next round. See article 9p2 in the version on the server. We have only day left before finalisation, so please send your feedback asap. Thanks, Ron[/quote:2m3qrahq] Out of curiosity, where did 1/3 come from? I can see that being a bit high if people announce a Round 2 that has X competitors and there's a low turnout for some reason. For example, Twin Cities 2009 had 42 competitors, so when I planned Cubetcha, I expected a similar number, so I announced that the second round of 3x3 would be the top 24. However, only 25 people came to Cubetcha, so I adjusted it down to 20. I didn't want to cut too much because I knew some people had come and expected to be in a second round by being top 24. Of course, "Top 24 or 2/3 of competitors, whichever is smaller" could just be standard disclaimer on competition websites. Is there time to make a quick analysis to see how many "compliant" competitions we would have had in 2009 based on the criteria of 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5? If 40% of competitions have broken the 1/3 rule, but only 15% have broken a 1/4 rule, I'd go with 1/4. I'm just making up those numbers, it would be good to see the actual data.

Edouard's proposition (avoid more than one group in final) is the only one tha make sense for me. All other are quite subjective and do not make de competition easier to organize. So they are pretty useless. However, aving only one group in final ensure more fairness in the competition because verybody have the same scramble. It can be very important in some events like sq-1, where scrambles are very unequel in difficulty.

If the rule is to be changed, I think 1/3 is extremely harsh if it's covering all cases. 1/4 seems much more reasonable.

[quote="deadalnix":2yeuw6nw]Edouard's proposition (avoid more than one group in final) is the only one tha make sense for me. All other are quite subjective and do not make de competition easier to organize. So they are pretty useless. [/quote:2yeuw6nw] Edouard's proposal makes competitions harder to organize. And with his proposal that you only need separate groups if you have more than one round, then it wouldn't come into play for Square-1 in most competitions.

[quote:1125fqng]aving only one group in final ensure more fairness in the competition because verybody have the same scramble[/quote:1125fqng] I can have a group of 100 people in a final. There is no technical limitation, so it does not contribute to the main question of this thread. The reason we proposed 1/3 is because some other people proposed to have at most 1/2 of the competitors in a final. With a 3 round competition 1/3 would result in: 2/3 * 2/3 = 4/9 of the competitors in the final. Pretty close to 1/2. With a 3 round competition 1/4 would result in: 3/4 * 3/4 = 9/16 of the competitors in the final. This is fine with me too. So let us stick with 1/4. I will change that tonight in the online version of the WCA Regulations. @Charlie: Don't worry too much about it. You are doing an awesome job and everyone (except 1 unnice person) love the competitions that you organise! Keep up the great work. People should discuss the regulations, not the fact that a competition organiser applies them correctly. Have fun!

[quote="BryanLogan":3dx6mcyv]Edouard's proposal makes competitions harder to organize.[/quote:3dx6mcyv] I expect you argue about that.

[quote="deadalnix":26b3w6fr][quote="BryanLogan":26b3w6fr]Edouard's proposal makes competitions harder to organize.[/quote:26b3w6fr] I expect you argue about that.[/quote:26b3w6fr] I have. viewtopic.php?p=4709#p4709 Feel free to respond to those concerns.

In this post, you didn't argue either. You just said : this is faster to have two groups (about the subjet we are talking, you says many others stuffs in you posts obviously).

[quote="deadalnix":1mr7y0zr]In this post, you didn't argue either. You just said : this is faster to have two groups (about the subjet we are talking, you says many others stuffs in you posts obviously).[/quote:1mr7y0zr] My statement is based on the 7 competitions I've ran, but I'll add some examples. Let's say I have 10 volunteers, and all 10 make it to the final round. If I have to have a single group, none of my volunteers can do anything until they compete, so I have to have a complete new person scramble and judge. He can clear 1 volunteer, and then that person can clear another one, and now I have two volunteers ready. If I can split into groups, I start the round with 5 volunteers, and once each of those clears one judge and I'm back to having my full judging after just a short period of time. Yes, I need to repeat this once again when I start the second group, but my ramp-up again is very quick. And if I used three groups, then it's even quicker. Please address the "many others" stuff in my post: 1) If this is so important, why is this only needed if the final round isn't the first round. 2) Why grouping people based on previous round results doesn't solve some of your concerns.

[quote="BryanLogan":xnwi53lc] Please address the "many others" stuff in my post: 1) If this is so important, why is this only needed if the final round isn't the first round. 2) Why grouping people based on previous round results doesn't solve some of your concerns.[/quote:xnwi53lc] I agree with you that grouping makes stuff faster, and I use that strategy here too. (but I try to have just one group in the finals) But to ask your questions: 1) Because the final round is the one which decides the competition. If you get 1st place in 1st and 2nd round, let's say averaging 2 seconds faster than everybody else, but fail miserably in the final (like I did...), you won't be the winner (I don't really care about winning, but some people do...I actually care about beating my PB...but that's not the point). So giving everybody the same chance at the final is the "right" thing, specially when people are really close in speed. 2) It solves some concerns, but let's say, for example, that you have 16 people in the final. #8 had a 15.70 average, and #9 had 15.71 (and #1 had like 14.50). They will be in different groups in the final. Now suppose group 2 (which contains #9) has really easy scrambles, and he gets a 14.20 average, beating everybody in the first group. That's kinda bad...would the result be the same if they all got the same (hard or easy) scrambles? I don't think so...

[quote="Pedro_S":ev6o0nuh][quote="BryanLogan":ev6o0nuh] Please address the "many others" stuff in my post: 1) If this is so important, why is this only needed if the final round isn't the first round. 2) Why grouping people based on previous round results doesn't solve some of your concerns.[/quote:ev6o0nuh] I agree with you that grouping makes stuff faster, and I use that strategy here too. (but I try to have just one group in the finals) But to ask your questions: 1) Because the final round is the one which decides the competition. If you get 1st place in 1st and 2nd round, let's say averaging 2 seconds faster than everybody else, but fail miserably in the final (like I did...), you won't be the winner (I don't really care about winning, but some people do...I actually care about beating my PB...but that's not the point). So giving everybody the same chance at the final is the "right" thing, specially when people are really close in speed. 2) It solves some concerns, but let's say, for example, that you have 16 people in the final. #8 had a 15.70 average, and #9 had 15.71 (and #1 had like 14.50). They will be in different groups in the final. Now suppose group 2 (which contains #9) has really easy scrambles, and he gets a 14.20 average, beating everybody in the first group. That's kinda bad...would the result be the same if they all got the same (hard or easy) scrambles? I don't think so...[/quote:ev6o0nuh] #1 - I'm referring to (viewtopic.php?p=4707#p4707) [quote="Edouard Chambon":ev6o0nuh] If you prefer it like that: "it's forbidden to do more than one group in a final of an event which had more than one round". [/quote:ev6o0nuh] If I have a single round of some event and have two groups, why is that OK? #2 - Yes, but isn't this all based on the results of the previous round? Who's to say that if #9 has the same scrambles as #8 in the previous round he wouldn't have made it at all. Unless you enforce everyone has the same solves throughout the entire competition, you can always come up with some theoretical situation where someone got an advantage.

[quote="BryanLogan":q21jn899] #1 - I'm referring to (viewtopic.php?p=4707#p4707) [quote="Edouard Chambon":q21jn899] If you prefer it like that: "it's forbidden to do more than one group in a final of an event which had more than one round". [/quote:q21jn899] If I have a single round of some event and have two groups, why is that OK? #2 - Yes, but isn't this all based on the results of the previous round? Who's to say that if #9 has the same scrambles as #8 in the previous round he wouldn't have made it at all. Unless you enforce everyone has the same solves throughout the entire competition, you can always come up with some theoretical situation where someone got an advantage.[/quote:q21jn899] #1 - Yes, I agree with you on that one. If you have just one round, sometimes you simply can't make a single group. I'm referring to multiple-round-events, specially 3x3x3. #2 - Yes, you can always come up with some theoretical situation where someone got an advantage. I'd say it's better that it would happen in earlier rounds, rather than in the final...but maybe that's just me.

[quote="BryanLogan":12dgldu1]My statement is based on the 7 competitions I've ran, but I'll add some examples. Let's say I have 10 volunteers, and all 10 make it to the final round. If I have to have a single group, none of my volunteers can do anything until they compete, so I have to have a complete new person scramble and judge. He can clear 1 volunteer, and then that person can clear another one, and now I have two volunteers ready. If I can split into groups, I start the round with 5 volunteers, and once each of those clears one judge and I'm back to having my full judging after just a short period of time. Yes, I need to repeat this once again when I start the second group, but my ramp-up again is very quick. And if I used three groups, then it's even quicker.[/quote:12dgldu1] I read this again and again and still don't get the point. If this is not the forst round, you have many people that are not in the final, but know how to scramble and judge (because they participate in the first round). So you'll have enough people to scramble and judge. This is also why we are not proposing this for the first round, but only for event that have more than one round. As I previously said, regulation have to be both fair and managable. And make this at the first round is clearly not managable. But doing this after the first round is managable if enough people are removed before the last round.

[quote="BryanLogan":35mz1yrz]#2 - Yes, but isn't this all based on the results of the previous round? Who's to say that if #9 has the same scrambles as #8 in the previous round he wouldn't have made it at all. Unless you enforce everyone has the same solves throughout the entire competition, you can always come up with some theoretical situation where someone got an advantage.[/quote:35mz1yrz] This is not a problem because very good people will be qualified anyway. This can make a difference for people close to the limit, but these people are unlike being to win anyway.

[quote="deadalnix":35m56bjj]If this is not the forst round, you have many people that are not in the final, but know how to scramble and judge (because they participate in the first round). So you'll have enough people to scramble and judge. [/quote:35m56bjj] Again, many (if not all) of the experienced volunteers make it to the final. Yes, there are people not in the final who can judge and scramble, but they are inexperienced in both and this can lead to a significant slowdown.

I think we all agree that it is best to let everyone have the same scrambles in a final, even in any round. There are situations where this is not doable. Back to the main question of this thread.

Eliminating 25% sounds fair to me. This still gives plenty of people a chance to compete in more than one round. If the organiser allows it, at least half of the people that turn up can get three rounds. Just a quick sample of the number of 3x3x3 competitors in previous competitions: EPGY Stanford Winter 2010: 45, 20, 12 Madrid Open 2010: 28, 22, 11 Toronto Spring 2010: 78, 25, 10 Japan Open 2010: 84, 36, 10 Melbourne Summer Open 2010: 32, 8 ABC Open 2010: 45, 20, 10 This doesn't seem to affect most people. The 22 people in round two in Madrid should have been 21 under this new rule.

[quote="Ron":u2g2p5av]The Board's decision for this year is to keep the current regulations for this subject.[/quote:u2g2p5av] I wonder why it has been changed then. Beside that I still can't see why this has to be covered by the regulations at all.

[quote:dia7555e]I wonder why it has been changed then.[/quote:dia7555e] This was an internal issue until Lars convinced us that we have to make a clearer decision. [quote:dia7555e]Beside that I still can't see why this has to be covered by the regulations at all.[/quote:dia7555e] 1) Because the current regulation is pretty liberal and parts of our community do not like it. 2) Because WCA Board and involved competition organiser(s) indirectly received negative feedback about this situation.

I don't how the 33% or 25% rule is supposed to make the situation better on that point. What is the problem solved by a rule like that ?

[quote="deadalnix":1f6mj2yt]I don't how the 33% or 25% rule is supposed to make the situation better on that point. What is the problem solved by a rule like that ?[/quote:1f6mj2yt] If you have a competition with 100 people, you can have the semi final with 99 competitors and the final with 98 competitors according to the current regulations. This allows many people to proceed and does not appear very competitive, which is disapproved of by some within the community and is the "problem" you refer to. By putting in place a minimum of 25% being removed for each round it makes it more difficult to proceed to the following round, which is more in line with 'competition spirit' you could say and solves the "problem".

I see now reason to have a regulation on this. This is up to the competition organisator to decide this kind of stuffs.

[quote:3jjnpkii]I see now reason to have a regulation on this. This is up to the competition organisator to decide this kind of stuffs.[/quote:3jjnpkii] Thanks for your feedback. Some agree with you, some think differently, and it was decided differently.

Ok for this rule. To me, it's fun to do a lot of attempts. But also you take a great pleasure when you managed to qualify to the final of an event where the level was very high and the limit very strict. There is less fun in thinking : "whatever I do, I will qualify to the final, so let's make the idiot, let's solve with orange cross, let's do a roux solve, etc.".

Could we please get a clarification on how we round 25% for numbers that don't evenly divide by 4? For example, if we have 10 competitors in round 1 we can only have 2.5 people in the final round XD. Does this round to 2, or 3? Thanks.

The rule says 'at least 25%'. So with 10 competitors 25% equals 2.5 competitors. 2 would not be at least 25%. 3 would be at least 25%.

Do you realize that you are "bumping" an old thread? Last post (from Ron) was in April, and these rules are applied and used in the current regulations. New rules and regulations are to be discussed after January 1st (I guess).

[quote="Henrik":3i32ieww]Do you realize that you are "bumping" an old thread? Last post (from Ron) was in April, and these rules are applied and used in the current regulations. New rules and regulations are to be discussed after January 1st (I guess).[/quote:3i32ieww] Do you realize it's just a spam bot that reposted Charlie's post (so the thing actually made sense) and added spam links?