8a5) The competition must have at least 12 competitors. People will probably reject this, but I'll put it out there for discussion: I think the 12 person rule should be removed. As long as the competition is made in good faith, it should be considered legal. Now, there's a lower turnout, then perhaps the WCA/organizer should determine the cause, and if it's possible to mitigate them for the next competition. For example, in Austrailia, people want a competition, but are unsure of the turnout. If this rule didn't exist, they could just hold it and those people who are weary to commit because they aren't sure if it'll be official could just come and know that they'll have official results. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. I won't hold a competition in the winter because if there was a snowstorm, I might not hit my 12 people. I don't hold a competition in lower population areas because I'm not sure of the turnout. Now, if I held a competition and it had a low turnout, I would expect the WCA to not approve another competition in that location for up to a year. This prevents the argument of people saying, "Well, what's to prevent people from having a weekly competition?" They're all WCA-approved. It's the same reason that a 20-person club can't have a competition every week. If you have a competition on a Wednesday night, don't advertise, had it announced only one month ahead, and you get only a few people, I would guess the board would reject it. However, if you have a competition in a new area, advertised it months in advance, and 10 people showed up, 7 of them new cubers, and there was many no-shows because of a snowstorm, should the results be official? Now, you can say that you can always try to see what interest there is, but we all know that some people will express interest, but they'll be a no-show anyways because of the smallest reason. Now, if a competition does have less than 12 people, then perhaps the board won't approve the next one unless there's been a demonstration of sufficient interest. But in order to grow the number of cubers, people need to know that they can travel to a comp without having to worry about it being unofficial. This rule goes against the "More competitions" philosophy.

The reason for the minimum number of competitors are to ensure some basic level of competition. I think that it's a good rule and actually i think that the limit are kind of low.

[quote="MadsMohr":kj2fb98d]The reason for the minimum number of competitors are to ensure some basic level of competition.[/quote:kj2fb98d] I don't think this would work anyway. Just to use an example, the Brazil competitions that Pedro completely dominates. There is hardly any "competition" for him. The other people turn up for their own fun (with some serious competitors) but basically, it is The-Pedro-Show. I think this is fair enough, he can't exactly make it to every competition out there. It would be the same if we had a New Zealand Open tomorrow. I'm fairly certain I would win almost every event, depending on if one other person showed up or not. Is it fair that I can't get official times because only 11 people are at the competition? Or is it fair if I drag my friend along who doesn't know how to solve a cube, just to make up the 12 people? Having a strict number sounds nice, but is very limiting. Having an event as official or not based on the discretion of the WCA is a far better plan.

I'm with Mads, I've been to cubemeetings where we had more people than 12 I think. I would rather see the number going up that to go down. Also: a well organised and advertised competition should get 12 people. If I would organise a competition I'd first want to know if anyone is willing and able to come in the first place...

[quote="Dene":2vo58ei0] I don't think this would work anyway. Just to use an example, the Brazil competitions that Pedro completely dominates. There is hardly any "competition" for him. [/quote:2vo58ei0] Well, there are competition for the secondary places. And it's not the point to make it harder for the fast guys. [quote="Dene":2vo58ei0] Is it fair that I can't get official times because only 11 people are at the competition? [/quote:2vo58ei0] I know what you meen, we can't hold competitions in Denmark without competitors from other countries (yet). I know this sucks, but it should be something special to get the official wca competition status.

[quote="Erik":36kh16lm]Also: a well organised and advertised competition should get 12 people. If I would organise a competition I'd first want to know if anyone is willing and able to come in the first place...[/quote:36kh16lm] Like I said, you can plan a competition and people will say they come, but then they are no-shows for whatever reason. Also, the possibility of things being beyond your control that affect turnout, like weather, or other competitions. If you ask how many people will come to a comp, and you get a group that says they would, because it's just 5 hours, and then after you announce, another competion that is a 1 hour drive for them is announced. So tell me, at what point did you fail as an organizer? Like I said, it's not to allow all competitions of any size, but it's to put it in the board's control so that the chicken-and-egg problems like Austrailia can be overcome. It's would be under the board's control. And if the board accepted a low-turnout competition, then they would probably not approve having another competition there unless it was somehow demonstrated they could get the numbers.

I'm with Bryan on this one here's an interesting scenario to think about: suppose there's a competition somewhere, 20 people registered some people are travelling a long way to participate then, by some reason, just 11 show up... do you think it is really fair for the 11 that showed up and wasted time and money not to have their results as official? I don't think that's any fair...

The scenario Bryan mentioned is similar to the Tampere open. It was the first competition scheduled for October 25. But when three other competitions were scheduled in Europe on the same day (after the Tampere Open was announced), there were only twelve competitors at Tampere. Let's say one of those people had gone to German Nationals instead. Or their car had broken down. Then a competition that had been originally scheduled for an open date would not be recognized. In the past, Tampere Open might have been the only competition in Europe on that day. It might have attracted some people who instead went to Hungary or Germany. But now there are getting to be more and more competitions in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Hungary, etc. There is practically one such competition per week. The competitions in Norway and Sweden will only be the "most convenient competition" to a small population of cubers. If that population is close to 12, then those people aren't going to be able to have their own competition without the danger of wasting a lot of time and money. For me and you, Erik, this rule is not very difficult to achieve. We take it for granted that any competition held in New York, California, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Japan, or Korea is basically guaranteed to have 12 competitors attend, and probably a lot more, even if there's no attempt at publicity made outside of speedcubing.com. That's partially because there's a lot of cubers, and also partially because there's a lot of cubers who check speedcubing.com a lot and go to WCA competitions a lot. But people in places like Australia, New Zealand, and Scandinavia would have to do a lot more work to hold competitions, all at the risk of it not counting for anything. We could have blamed the organizers of Tampere Open if there were already three competitions that day when they announced theirs. The WCA board could have said, "Pick a different day, that day is too busy." But there weren't. It's not their fault. There was no way of knowing. As big competitions in Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, and Hungary become more common, it'll be harder for Tampere Opens to happen, and thus harder for smaller cubing populations to develop. Give everyone a chance to compete without the fear that all their work won't be recognized based on a fluke.

I think that the rule should be relaxed so that the WCA Board may acknowledge a competition even if less that 12 competitors show up. Maybe they alredy can? /Anders

The example where there were many competitions held on the same day is partly the responsibility of the WCA Board and the organizers. The reason why competitions in the United States clear through me is so that we don't have 3 competitions all on the same day within a 20 mile radius of each other in Southern California. I don't know that 12 is a terrible number. Surely there should be some minimum amount for an event. It would be really annoying to see a 3 person competition. If 12 is a bad number, then what would you suggest? And why would your arbitrary number be any better than 12?

With "relaxing the rule" I meant something like that "must" may be changed to "should", not to change the "12". I am rather suggesting that, under extraordinary circumstances, fewer competitors may be allowed, courtesy of the WCA Board. In any case, the WCA board may grant a competition official status even if less than twelve competitors show up: 8f) If the WCA regulations are not followed correctly during a competition, then the WCA Board may declare the competition, specific events or specific solves unofficial. /Anders

Does the 'may' there give the WCA Board authority to make an exception for a competition with 10 competitors?

I understand it that way, yes. The WCA Board seems not to be forced to make a competition/event/solve unofficial even if the regulations are not followed.

I'm going to approach this rule from a different angle. Sure, competitor A is competitive in 3x3x3, and competitors B through L decide to drop out. That could be terrible for competitor A. The reason, however, why this rule should be eliminated, I feel is very straight forward. Let's not even consider things regarding time-trials against people from around the world or anything... or how sad competitor A is. This rule, simply cannot be enforced. It's really silly, and I'm sure you probably know what I'm getting at now. If Competitors B through L drop out, you simply find someones to just DNF their 3x3x3 solves, and you have your "twelve person competition." Because this rule cannot be enforced, we shouldn't have it at all. Having this rule doesn't actually prohibit people from having a one-person competition. It simply requires that a one-person competition has partners who DNFs everything. Why bother having a rule when it doesn't do anything? ====================================================== It looks like 8f does give the board the ability to do accept the results (as it gives them the ability to accept the results of _any_ competition overriding all the regulations). I think 12 is a fine number. But I think it would be nice for people to know that they can travel to a competition and not have it be for nothing. But again, the issues behind the low turnout would be examined. If it's something truly beyond their control, then accept it. If they were organizing an event and had no intention of having others show up because they wanted to cram in all events for them and their 5 friends, then reject it. If anything, have the implications for having less than 12 (by no fault of the organizer) come for the next event. Have the organizers show that they are able to remedy the previous problems, and if they don't hit 12 there, then make that unofficial. Let me ask it this way: If the Tampere open had only 11 competitors, would the WCA board have invoked 8f? If the Tampere had 12 competitors, but one of them competed only in 3x3x3 with (DNF, DNS, DNS, DNS, DNS), would the board have accepted them?

[quote="Tyson":3ctizvpn]The reason why competitions in the United States clear through me is so that we don't have 3 competitions all on the same day within a 20 mile radius of each other in Southern California. [/quote:3ctizvpn] There's only one set of timers in Southern California, isn't there? Anyway, I think this should be something that does not have a definite rule set in stone, but rather is based off the WCA board's decision. If 10 people can get together and hold a legitimate competition, following all rules, then there's no reason their efforts should not count.

[quote="Tyson":3qjr9lry]I don't know that 12 is a terrible number. Surely there should be some minimum amount for an event. It would be really annoying to see a 3 person competition. If 12 is a bad number, then what would you suggest? And why would your arbitrary number be any better than 12?[/quote:3qjr9lry] I couldn't agree more. No one has come up with an argument that their limit should be any better. Most people has been talking about the unlikely event of a large group not showing up, be it accident or choice. Bending the rules for all competitions to fit this problem are the wrong way to go and it will do more harm than good. While i would hate to see a competition loose it's official status i would hate it more to see 3 person competitions. The best argument for lowering the limit are to support the small cubing communities. Perhaps we could grant an exception from the regulations when a community has been able to hold two unofficial competitions with an increased amount of competitors? Let's say you are 5 people the first time and 10 the next, and you are able to get the same 10 people the 3rd time. Just an idea, i don't really know if it's any good. I live in a small country and we has to work very hard to support the small but growing community in Denmark. We love doing it because we'll get to hold larger and better competitions. And mostly because we get to share the fun of solving puzzles with new people. I don't know if Denmark are a good measure, but i think that if we are able to do it in Denmark then you could do it anywhere. (Danes are scared of failing more than they enjoy trying, it's in the culture)

[quote="MadsMohr":phppclw4] Most people has been talking about the unlikely event of a large group not showing up, be it accident or choice. [/quote:phppclw4] That's exactly my point. It's unlikely that this would occur. It's not automatic. [quote="MadsMohr":phppclw4] While i would hate to see a competition loose it's official status i would hate it more to see 3 person competitions. [/quote:phppclw4] Again, it's would be up to the WCA board. They're not stupid. There's a big difference between arranging and only getting 3 people, and arranging, having something else occur, and getting 10 people. [quote="MadsMohr":phppclw4] The best argument for lowering the limit are to support the small cubing communities. [/quote:phppclw4] It's not so much as to support them, but to give them a chance to grow. Right now, if someone wants to hold a competition somewhere, it's very difficult to tell if you'll have enough competitors (even if you get 20 people saying they would go). Many people may not come if there's not 12 competitors, so you have that chicken and egg scenario. I'm guessing if this regulation was in effect, Tampere may have had more competitors. By enacting this, you're making it hat much more unlikely that it would need to be used. [quote="MadsMohr":phppclw4] Perhaps we could grant an exception from the regulations when a community has been able to hold two unofficial competitions with an increased amount of competitors? Let's say you are 5 people the first time and 10 the next, and you are able to get the same 10 people the 3rd time. Just an idea, i don't really know if it's any good. [/quote:phppclw4] People will travel for hours to come to an official competition. Some people won't travel 15 minutes to come to an unofficial one. If you get 10 people at an unofficial one, you'll likely get enough for an official one. [quote="MadsMohr":phppclw4] but i [b:phppclw4]think [/b:phppclw4]that if we are able to do it in Denmark then you could do it anywhere. [/quote:phppclw4] Yup, this would simply remove the "think" for the competition. If you end up with a small competition, it's not like the board will keep accepting future ones unless you have done something. [quote="http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/node/11":phppclw4] The goal of the World Cube Association is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions. [/quote:phppclw4] Unless a small competition somehow constitutes "unfair" conditions, I'm not sure how this proposal goes against the WCA goal.

Having a fixed limit, and the current limit are very reasonable, helps to set the framework for successful competitions. If you have to live up to certain requirements then only the serious people try to organize competitions. And seeing that we had double the amount of competitions this year i don't see the necessity to change the current limit.

For 2009 draft 1 I changed 'must' to 'should' to accommodate special cases where there are a lot of no-shows. I still feel that there must be a lower bound of competitors. 12 is arbitrary of course, but to me it sounds like a reasonable number. Ron