Is there any reason only one person was in the Master Magic in Boulder? http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/res ... s=1#mmagic Also, it was noted on speedsolving.com that the Euro 2008 had a single competitor in the qualification round.

yes,i think it should be as minimun 2 people per event because if not there is no competition,but the organitation team should give he or she sonething because he/she "won"

Please take a look [url=http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5588&page=2:3emx488n]here[/url:3emx488n] for the explanation of the Boulder comp: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showt ... 588&page=2

[quote="stiwi griffin":3o6f3d88]i think it should be as minimun 2 people per event because if not there is no competition,but the organitation team should give he or she sonething because he/she "won"[/quote:3o6f3d88] The minimum of 2 people is already a regulation. Also, the organizational team isn't required to give anyone anything for winning (they _should_ at least give certificates, but it's not required). Looking at pjk's explanation in the speedsolving.com forum, it looks like they would've been able to add more competitors, even if the competitor would've had a poor time or even DNF's/DNS's. And even in the discussions, where 5x5x5 BLD was usually the event, it was suggested that you just have someone DNF if you needed it. Basically, the regulation has a huge loophole around it that renders it worthless. As long as the solves were done under WCA regulations, they should be allowed. Hopefully it'll be removed in the 2009 regulations. Is it possible to start talking about those now? So maybe we'll have a working draft by 2009?

[quote="BryanLogan":2a2vn8su] it was suggested that you just have someone DNF if you needed it. Basically, the regulation has a huge loophole around it that renders it worthless. As long as the solves were done under WCA regulations, they should be allowed.[quote:2a2vn8su] I saw that suggestion. If that is a legit suggestion, what is even the point of the rule? Having someone DNF just to create 2 competitors would be ridiculous. [quote="BryanLogan":2a2vn8su]Hopefully it'll be removed in the 2009 regulations. Is it possible to start talking about those now? So maybe we'll have a working draft by 2009?[/quote:2a2vn8su][/quote:2a2vn8su][/quote:2a2vn8su] I agree. It doesn't hurt to start early. My question is, what happens to Dan's solves now? I sure hope they don't become DNF's, although if they do, I understand that it was against the regulations. It was my mistake for confusing the change, I should have looked into it more.

Ah, I ddin't see that, though I suppose an argument could be made that the resin, or what-have-you, would be applied before inspection and solve, the regulation quoted states that I can't get help durring the solve. I will check with the officials as suggested.