SaveClock.org
#SAVECLOCK
The clock is ticking. Time remaining until the announced removal of Clock as an official WCA event.
25 July 2027 · 19:00 CEST · Uppsala, Sweden
How to read this site
From documented history to decision analysis
SaveClock separates documented facts from governance principles and analytical questions. The structure below shows how the different sections fit together.
The documented history of the event-change framework.
Necessity · Alternatives · Proportionality · Consistency · Impact · Traceability
Postpone the implementation of Clock's removal until the event-change framework has been established, its criteria have been defined, and Clock can be evaluated through the same consistent, transparent and traceable process applied to any other event.
2019 → 2025 → 2026 · A documented governance gap
The framework was already identified as necessary
The need for a clear and transparent process for changing official WCA events did not emerge from the Clock controversy in 2026. The documentary record shows that the issue had already been identified years earlier.
After removing 3x3x3 With Feet, the WCA Regulations Committee explicitly acknowledged flaws in the process and stated that it would prioritise a clear and transparent process for future event changes.
Years later, the need to develop a framework for changes to the official event list was reflected in the WCA's own Strategic Plan.
The decision to remove Clock was announced before that framework had been established as the clear and public basis for evaluating changes to the official event list.
“We would also like to take this time to apologize for the flaws in the process used for this decision. We have learned greatly from the community's feedback, and will prioritize a clear and transparent process for event changes in the future.”
WCA Regulations Committee · 4 December 2019
The need for a clear and transparent event-change process had been identified in 2019 and was subsequently reflected in the WCA's 2025–2028 Strategic Plan.
Why was a decision to remove an official event made before that framework was established?
This is not a lesson first learned from the Clock controversy. The documentary record shows that the need for a clear and transparent event-change process had already been identified years earlier.
May–June 2026 · Consultation milestone
The WCA surveys the community on the future of the event list
The WCA conducted parallel surveys of Volunteers and the wider Community to understand attitudes towards adding new events, removing or reducing existing events, and possible compromise approaches.
The survey established strong support for adding FTO. It did not establish equivalent community support for removing an existing event in order to do so.
When respondents were nevertheless asked which existing events were most appropriate for removal or reduced status, Clock ranked first among Volunteers but second among the wider Community, behind 5x5x5 Blindfolded.
24 June 2026 · Key milestone
The WCA announces the removal of Clock
The WCA Board announces two major changes to the official event list: Face-Turning Octahedron will become an official event in January 2027, while Clock will be removed following the 2027 World Championship.
To explain Clock's removal, the Board points to several considerations: recurring incidents and operational difficulties, different procedures and equipment, limited spectator visibility, and Clock's fundamental differences from the puzzles used in other WCA events.
“Removing Clock strengthens the WCA’s identity as being an organization for three dimensional geometrical twisty puzzles and not other mechanical puzzles.”
WCA Board · 24 June 2026
The announcement provides reasons for considering changes to Clock's status. What it does not provide is the decision framework showing how those considerations were evaluated, weighted and compared, or why they resulted specifically in removal rather than another available outcome.
The question is not whether the Board had reasons. The question is how those reasons became this decision.
25 June onwards · Community response
The community responds
Following the WCA's official announcement on 24 June at 20:00 CEST, discussion intensified rapidly in the WCA Forum topic “Changes to the WCA’s List of Official Events (June 2026)”.
The response was not limited to the Forum. A public petition titled “Reinstate Clock as an official WCA event” was created on Change.org on 24 June, the same day as the announcement. By 30 June, less than one week later, it had surpassed 5,000 signatures.
Community members extensively discussed and challenged different aspects of the decision and the reasons given for removing Clock.
Neither the volume of Forum discussion nor the number of petition signatures is, by itself, evidence that the decision was right or wrong. They do, however, provide objective evidence of a substantial community response that became part of the process the Board subsequently said it was considering.
Once substantial feedback had been received, the question was no longer only how the original decision had been reached. It was also how that feedback would be evaluated, addressed and reflected in what happened next.
1 July 2026 · Process milestone
The Board says the conversation remains open
Following the strong community response to the initial announcement, the WCA Board acknowledged the feedback received through petitions, forum discussions, videos, social media and emails.
“The perspectives shared over the past week are being given genuine consideration.”
“For now, we have not taken any further firm decisions on this topic. We are taking the time to reflect properly on everything we’ve heard, and this remains an ongoing conversation.”
18 July 2026 · Process milestone
The Board says Clock remains an active topic of conversation
During a public interview at the WCA European Championship 2026, Board members Oliver Hexter and Rubén López discussed the community response to Clock's announced removal and the ongoing consideration of the feedback received.
“We're still in the position of listening to, absorbing all that feedback [...] and it does remain an active topic of conversation for us.”
Oliver Hexter · WCA Board Member
“It will definitely be a different process, a different way to communicate things.”
Rubén López · WCA Board Member
Later in the interview, Rubén also acknowledged that “things have not been done perfectly”, while Oliver emphasised that the Board was “still listening.”
19 August 2026 · Key milestone
The Board declares the decision final
After almost two months of community discussion and consultation, the WCA Board reaffirmed the removal of Clock after the 2027 World Championship.
“This decision is final.”
“No further event changes are planned without a more transparent process and greater consultation.”
In the same statement, the Board announced support for the development of the framework envisaged in the WCA Strategic Plan for future changes to WCA events.
If a framework, greater transparency and greater consultation are necessary for future event changes, why should Clock be the exception?
There is still time to do this properly.
25 August 2026 · Formal request
A formal request is sent to the Board
Two months after the announcement, the Almeria Speedcubing Association submitted a formal written request directly to the WCA Board of Directors.
The request focused on the unresolved governance question at the centre of the Clock decision:
Why the removal of an official event had been decided before the framework intended to provide criteria for event changes had been established.
The Association explicitly stated that it was not arguing that Clock must remain an official event indefinitely. Instead, it asked the Board to develop the framework first, establish the criteria in advance, evaluate alternatives and impacts, and then apply that methodology consistently to Clock, FTO and any future event change.
Develop the framework first. Apply it to every event change.
The Board was asked to reconsider implementation of the decision to remove Clock until the envisaged event framework had been developed, and then assess the removal of Clock against the criteria and methodology established by that framework.
Status · Formal response requested · Response pending
21–27 August 2026 · Forum moderation record
Questions emerge over moderation of critical discussion
Following the Board's declaration that the decision was final, posts by the Almeria Speedcubing Association discussing SaveClock.org, governance, transparency and the decision-making process were subject to a series of moderation actions on the official WCA Forum.
These included the removal of a separate SaveClock.org topic and the subsequent removal as “spam” of a respectful, on-topic post discussing the process behind the Clock decision.
Because these incidents raise separate questions about moderation criteria, consistency and the treatment of critical feedback on an official WCA communication platform, we have preserved the available record, correspondence and evidence on a dedicated page.
When respectful criticism is removed from an official communication channel, the moderation process itself becomes a question of transparency and accountability.
Early September 2026 · New information
A former Board member provides new insight into the decision
In early September, Nick Silvestri, who served on the WCA Board of Directors from 1 June 2024 to 1 May 2026, published a detailed response discussing the reasoning behind Clock's removal.
Nick Silvestri was no longer a Director when the removal of Clock was publicly announced on 24 June 2026. SaveClock does not assume from his former position alone that he personally participated in the deliberations concerning Clock's removal; this is one of the questions that has been raised publicly.
His account introduced several elements that had not been clearly identified in the original 24 June announcement, including the role of “WCA leadership, partners, and key stakeholders”, the expected time required to develop and apply a more robust framework for adding, removing or tiering events, and the existence of a “timeline” affecting the decision.
He also stated that several data points concerning Clock participation, newcomer uptake and retention were not relevant to the decision, and described three factors which, in his view, represented the fundamental balance behind it.
These statements provided important new information, but also raised further questions about the criteria, evidence and methodology behind the decision.
A three-part analysis examined those questions from three perspectives: WCA identity and event criteria; the factors, evidence and metrics considered relevant; and the framework, urgency and timeline surrounding the decision.
The discussion increasingly shifted from whether Clock should remain an official event to a more fundamental question: not simply what decision was made, but how that decision was made and what criteria were used to make it.
Identity
What defines the WCA's identity — and when was it defined?
The removal of Clock has been justified, in part, by reference to the WCA's strategy and identity. However, the published record now presents several different formulations of what that identity means.
The current WCA Regulations describe the organisation's competitive scope in Article 9a:
“The WCA governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as ‘twisty puzzles’.”
Clock is explicitly included among the official events in Article 9b1.
The WCA Strategic Plan 2025–2028 takes a different approach. It states that its new Purpose Statement is intended to be “a truer reflection of who we are and where we are headed” , but it does not define the WCA's identity according to the physical or mechanical characteristics of its puzzles. Instead, it defines the organisation's purpose around empowering the global speedcubing community and upholding a fun and fair competitive environment for all.
Yet the Board's 24 June announcement introduced a more restrictive formulation when explaining Clock's removal:
“three dimensional geometrical twisty puzzles and not other mechanical puzzles”
And in early September, former WCA Director Nick Silvestri described the strategic objective in still more specific terms:
“reinforcing the WCA's identity for being about layer-turning color-matching 3D puzzles”
This introduces characteristics — including layer-turning and color-matching — that do not appear as general event-eligibility criteria in either the current Regulations or the Strategic Plan.
The issue is not whether this could be a reasonable identity for the WCA. It may be. The governance question is when, where and through what process that more restrictive conception of identity was established before being used as a criterion for removing an official event.
If identity is intended to determine which puzzles belong in the WCA's official events catalogue, it should be defined clearly enough to answer a broader question:
Would the same identity criterion, established in advance and applied consistently, provide a coherent basis for evaluating Clock, FTO and every other official event?
Identity should not become a criterion only when evaluating a particular event. Its meaning, its relationship with the WCA's strategy, and its consequences for event eligibility should be established first and then applied consistently across the entire catalogue.
Define the identity. Define the framework. Define the criteria. Then evaluate the events.
Governance
From governance to decision
Good governance requires more than choosing between alternatives.
Changes to the WCA's official events catalogue should be grounded in a clear strategic framework, supported by defined principles, objective criteria, a consistent methodology, and transparency throughout the process.
A sound decision-making process
The WCA Strategic Plan 2025–2028 envisages the development of a framework for changing WCA events. We believe that framework should come before irreversible decisions about the official events catalogue.
Our submission to the WCA Board
Governance reflections submitted on 22 July 2026
On 22 July 2026, the Almeria Speedcubing Association submitted a document to the WCA Board of Directors addressing many of the questions raised on this website: the identity of speedcubing, governance, objective criteria, transparency, and the framework envisaged in the WCA Strategic Plan.
The document was submitted weeks before the Board's final statement of 19 August 2026 and before the publication of the internal voting details.
“Develop a framework that supports the changing of WCA events”
WCA Strategic Plan 2025–2028 · Events & Championships
Develop the framework. Define the criteria. Evaluate the alternatives. Then decide.
Process matters
Two very different sequences
The order matters. A framework should guide a decision, not emerge as a consequence of it.
What happened with Clock
A framework-first approach
A framework should not be the lesson learned from a decision. It should be the framework used to make that decision.
Analysis of the documented decision
Was removing Clock necessary and proportionate?
The timeline documents what happened. The following analysis examines what the publicly available record allows us to understand about why permanent removal was selected as the appropriate response.
Identifying concerns about an event does not, by itself, explain why permanent removal was necessary. A decision of this magnitude should also allow the community to understand which factors actually determined the outcome, what evidence was considered relevant, what alternatives were evaluated, why action was considered necessary before the event framework was available, and why permanent removal was considered proportionate.
What factors actually determined the decision — those identified in the official announcement, or the three fundamental factors later described by Nick Silvestri?
What evidence was evaluated, and by what criteria were participation, growth, newcomer uptake and retention considered relevant or irrelevant?
Did adding FTO necessarily require removing another official event, or could FTO have been introduced temporarily as an 18th event?
What alternatives were considered — including maintaining 18 events, waiting for the framework, tiering events, or removing a different event — and why were they rejected?
What specific risk or organisational need made it necessary to remove Clock before the framework for adding, removing or tiering events had been developed and applied?
Was permanent removal proportionate to the problems identified, their scale and frequency, and the alternatives available?
Was the impact of removing Clock assessed against the expected organisational, competitive or strategic benefit of doing so?
Where is the analysis connecting the factors, evidence, criteria, alternatives and expected impacts to the final decision documented?
Former WCA Director Nick Silvestri described three fundamental factors behind the decision: strong community support for adding FTO; a view among WCA leadership, partners and key stakeholders that simply adding events was undesirable; and the time required to develop and apply a more robust event framework.
He also stated that several participation-related measures — including newcomer uptake, Clock retention and the rise in uptake — were not relevant to the decision because they did not contribute significantly to top-line KPIs.
These statements provide additional insight, but they also make the methodology behind the decision more important to understand: what criteria determined relevance, how competing factors were weighted, what KPIs were being applied, and what urgency justified making the decision before the framework was available?
The question is no longer simply whether reasons existed for considering the removal of Clock. It is whether the available evidence shows why permanent removal was necessary, why the alternatives were insufficient, and how that conclusion was reached through a consistent and traceable decision-making process.
What we are asking for
Develop the framework first. Apply it to Clock.
SaveClock is not asking the WCA to guarantee that Clock must remain an official event indefinitely.
We are asking for something more fundamental: that permanent changes to the official event list be made under a clear, transparent and consistently applicable framework, with predefined criteria and a decision-making process that the community can understand.
Until that framework has been established and can be applied in a consistent, transparent and objective manner, we ask the WCA Board to postpone the implementation of Clock's removal.
The WCA's own Strategic Plan already identifies the development of an event framework as an objective. And as early as 2019, following the removal of 3x3x3 With Feet, the WCA publicly recognised flaws in that process and committed to prioritising a clear and transparent process for future event changes.
If Clock should be removed, let that conclusion emerge from the framework — not the framework from the conclusion.
This is not about being Pro-Clock or Anti-Clock. It is about how decisions that affect the community should be made.
Because the greatest risk for the WCA is not losing one event.
It is losing the trust of the people who voluntarily devote their time to building the future of this community.