Transparency · Forum moderation
WCA Forum Moderation Record
A documented record of two separate moderation incidents involving content published by the Almeria Speedcubing Association in the official WCA Forum.
Rather than characterising the intentions behind these actions, this page presents the available record: preserved content, Forum notifications and correspondence with the WCA Communication Team. Where an original document is no longer available to us, that limitation is stated explicitly.
Incident 01 · 21 August 2026
SaveClock.org — A documented timeline of the decision to remove Clock
A separate WCA Forum topic created to discuss the decision-making process, transparency and the future event framework
Topic removed01 · New topic created
A separate topic was opened to discuss SaveClock.org and the governance questions
On August 21, 2026, we created a new topic on the WCA Forum entitled “SaveClock.org — A documented timeline of the decision to remove Clock”.
The purpose of the topic was to present SaveClock.org as a documented timeline and analysis of the process surrounding the announced removal of Clock, while keeping discussion about the decision-making process, transparency and the future event framework separate from the already extensive main discussion.
02 · SaveClock.org also announced in the main discussion
A second post linking to SaveClock.org remained publicly available
At the same time, on August 21, we also published a message in the main “Changes to the WCA’s List of Official Events (June 2026)” discussion announcing the creation of the separate SaveClock.org topic.
That message explicitly described SaveClock.org as “a documented timeline and analysis of the process that led to the decision to remove Clock”, linked to the newly created Forum topic, and linked directly to SaveClock.org.
We have put together SaveClock.org, a documented timeline and analysis of the process that led to the decision to remove Clock, based on the WCA’s published survey results, Board statements and the interview with Oliver Hexter at the European Championship.
Rather than adding another long post to this already very extensive thread, I have opened a separate topic so that discussion specifically about the decision-making process, transparency and future event framework can remain focused.
SaveClock — A documented timeline of the decision to remove Clock
The site is available at https://saveclock.org
03 · Preserved community response
The removed topic generated substantive discussion
Although the original topic is no longer available to us in full, an email notification preserved a detailed response from Forum user Ryan Fong.
His response engaged directly with the governance and procedural analysis presented by SaveClock.org and proposed several substantive improvements, including further examination of community feedback.
“This is an incredibly valuable resource, and I sincerely thank you for making it. I agree that governance and procedural issues are at the heart of why the decision was so problematic…”
Ryan Fong · Forum reply preserved in an email notification04 · Separate topic removed
The SaveClock.org topic and references to the website were removed
We subsequently received a communication from the WCA Communication Team informing us that the separate topic advertising SaveClock.org and references to the website had been removed.
05 · Specific rule requested
We asked twice which published Forum rule had been breached
After reviewing the published Forum rules, we asked the WCA Communication Team to identify the specific rule or guideline prohibiting links to non-WCA resources that had been applied to the removal.
After receiving no response to our initial request, we sent a follow-up asking the same question again.
Which specific published WCA Forum rule or guideline prohibits linking to non-WCA resources and was applied when the SaveClock.org topic and references were removed?
06 · WCT clarification
The WCA Communication Team confirmed that no clear written rule covered it
In response, WCA Communication Team Leader Kyle Hayles confirmed that the specific restriction was not clearly written in the published Forum rules.
“Whilst there is not a clear rule written there, as the disclaimer mentions, the list is not exhaustive and we reserve the right to act in other situations as deemed necessary.”
Kyle Hayles · WCA Communication Team LeaderThe response also stated that the WCT would look into specifying this issue when the Forum rules are next updated.
07 · Unresolved moderation inconsistency
Two posts by the same Association, on the same day, received different moderation outcomes
The reason initially given for removing the separate SaveClock.org topic, published by the Almeria Speedcubing Association, was that advertising external websites and linking to non-WCA resources was against the WCA Forum rules.
However, Forum post #880 — published by the same Association on the same day — explicitly announced SaveClock.org, linked to the separate Forum topic, and linked directly to SaveClock.org, yet remained publicly available.
If external promotion and links to non-WCA resources were the basis for removing the separate topic, why was Forum post #880 — published by the same Association, on the same day, and containing the same external resource and links — allowed to remain?
Based on the moderation record available to us, we cannot determine why these two publications received different treatment.
Documentary conclusion
What the available evidence establishes
The record establishes that a separate SaveClock.org topic was removed, that the initial explanation referred to a prohibition on external websites and non-WCA links, and that the WCA Communication Team later stated that there was no clear rule written in the referenced Forum rules specifically covering that situation.
The rules URL provided in that response was not publicly accessible when we attempted to consult it, preventing us from independently verifying the contents of the referenced page.
The record also establishes that another post published by the Almeria Speedcubing Association on the same day explicitly announced SaveClock.org, linked to the separate Forum topic and linked directly to SaveClock.org, yet remained publicly available.
We document that difference here without attributing motives or attempting to reconstruct material that is no longer available.
Incident 02 · 24–26 August 2026
“Two months later: the questions remain open”
A governance post in the existing official-events discussion
Removed as spam01 · 24 August 2026
The original post
The following text is reproduced in full. It is the text that was published in the WCA Forum.
Two months later: the questions remain open
Today marks exactly two months since, on June 24, the WCA jointly announced the addition of FTO and the future removal of Clock as an official event.
Since then, there has been a great deal of debate (and there will continue to be). The Board has provided additional explanations, members of the community have presented arguments both for and against the decision, and on August 19, the WCA confirmed that it was maintaining its position. But after two months, I believe the fundamental question remains unanswered.
This is not simply about whether Clock should stay or go. It is about the process by which an organization decides to add or remove an official event.
In 2019, following the removal of 3x3x3 With Feet, the WCA itself acknowledged “flaws in the process”, stated that it had learned from the community’s feedback, and committed to prioritizing “a clear and transparent process for event changes in the future”. Years later, the development of a framework for evaluating the addition and removal of events also appeared in the WCA’s strategic planning. Yet now, in 2026, another official event has once again been scheduled for removal before that framework was established.
And that is the question that, two months later, we believe remains unanswered: If the WCA had already identified the need for a clear and transparent process for event changes, why was the decision to remove Clock made first, while the development of the framework intended to provide the criteria for this type of decision was left until afterwards?
The Board should not view the event framework as something that can be postponed until after major decisions about official events have already been made. As the WCA’s highest decision-making body, it should be the first to want such a tool in place: a framework that provides predefined criteria, consistency, transparency, and traceability for the decisions it is responsible for making.
We are not asking for Clock to remain an official event forever. An objective framework could perfectly well conclude that Clock should be removed.
What we are asking for is much simpler:
Develop the framework first. Apply it to every event change.
Establish the criteria in advance. Evaluate the alternatives and the impacts. Make the process traceable, and ensure that it can be applied in the same way to Clock, FTO, or any other future event. And if, after applying that process, the conclusion is that an event should be removed, let that conclusion emerge from the framework.
We are still asking these questions from the same position we started from: with respect for the people who make up the WCA, and with the conviction that scrutinizing an institutional decision does not mean personally questioning those who made it.
355 days remain. The clock is ticking. We need answers.
02 · First community flags
Automatically hidden as spam
The Forum notification stated that the post had been flagged as spam by the community and had therefore been hidden automatically.
03 · Review and restoration
Restored without changing a single word
We reviewed the post after the first flag. We could identify no advertising, external link, commercial promotion or irrelevant material and therefore restored it without changing a single word.
Record limitation
We do not have a screenshot documenting the post at the exact moment it was restored. This step is therefore recorded as part of our account of the moderation sequence rather than as independently preserved visual evidence.
04 · Second flags and staff decision
The post was permanently removed as spam
The post was subsequently flagged again. This time, the notification confirmed that the final removal was not purely automatic: a member of WCA Forum staff opted to remove the post.
05 · Request for clarification
Two specific questions for the WCA Communication Team
Following the staff decision to remove the post, we formally requested a clear explanation of the criterion applied to its classification and removal as spam.
What exact content in that post justified its classification and removal as spam, and what criterion formed the basis for a staff member’s decision to remove it?
How does removing a respectful, on-topic criticism as “spam” align with the WCT’s principles of transparency, openness and responsiveness, and with its responsibility to maintain communication channels between the Community and the Board?
Status · Formal clarification requested · Response pending
Why this matters
Moderation is also a question of process
The issue documented here is not whether a Forum should have moderators or whether moderators should retain reasonable discretion. The question is whether moderation criteria are clear, predictable and applied consistently — particularly when moderation results in the removal of respectful criticism of an institutional decision.
The WCA Communication Team’s own motion describes transparency, inclusiveness, openness and responsiveness as principles of WCA communication, and assigns the WCT a role in maintaining communication channels between the WCA Community and the Board.
A formal request for clarification has been sent to the WCA Communication Team regarding the specific content and criteria that formed the basis for the staff decision to remove the post as spam.
This record will be updated if a response or further relevant information is received.
