New insight into the Clock decision

In this reply —to keep it from becoming too long— I will only address the part about Identity that Nick mentions, and which was also mentioned in the official announcement.

First of all, I would like to thank @nsilvestri for replying to Larry’s post, even though he has not answered my questions. I consider his arguments to have answered this particular point. Thank you.

You and the Board cite, as a strategic reason, reinforcing the WCA’s identity: “reinforcing the WCA’s identity for being about layer-turning color-matching 3D puzzles.”. I like that phrase, sincerely. I think it is powerful and appropriate as a definition of identity for the WCA. But your argument does not hold up, and that is why we are critical: because of the “how”, because of the process followed to make the decision. Let me explain.

You speak of a strategic reason, but if you read the Strategic Plan 2025–2028 again, you will see that it does not define the WCA’s identity according to the physical or mechanical characteristics of its puzzles. Nor does it define identity in any other way. Therefore, you cannot say that the Board is using a strategic reason when that reason is not defined in its current Strategic Plan.

On the other hand, let us look at the definition of Identity. If we review the official Bylaws, there is no mention of identity. If we review the Regulations, Article 9a says:

9a) The WCA governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as “twisty puzzles”.

And Article 9b1 includes Clock as an official event:

9b1) 3x3x3 Cube, 2x2x2 Cube, 4x4x4 Cube, 5x5x5 Cube, 3x3x3 One-Handed, Clock, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Skewb, and Square-1.

Now let us look at what the Board defined as Identity in its June 24 announcement:

“three dimensional geometrical twisty puzzles and not other mechanical puzzles”.

And now, according to Nick, the identity is:

“layer-turning color-matching 3D puzzles”.

A new variable has been introduced: color-matching.

So, we have three definitions of Identity. One defined in the Regulations, another stated in the official announcement, which included “three dimensional”, and now another one —which I personally like— that has been strengthened with “color-matching”.

I do not think anyone reading this can deny that the identity criterion used to justify the removal of Clock is not established either in the Strategic Plan or in the current Regulations (reviewed version: wca-regulations-official-2026-04-01). Both the official announcement and the definition provided by Nick use a more restrictive conception of identity than the one formally established in the WCA’s current Regulations. Why? To provide a solid justification for removing Clock?

If the WCA believes that its identity should be that of an organization focused on “layer-turning color-matching 3D puzzles”, that seems perfectly fine to me —I have already said that I like it— but the Board should have established that beforehand, rather than using it as an end in itself.

That is why I maintain that the Board, as the highest governing body of this organization, should lead by example in applying the established rules and procedures, and should ensure that its decisions are made under the rules that have been set.

And sincerely, with all due respect, this is not the case here.

And I will reiterate this once again: we are persistent in our arguments; we are not repetitive.

Thanks.

In this post, I will focus on analysing the factors for removing Clock that Nick mentioned in his reply to Larry.

If we analyse the factors Nick says were considered when deciding to remove Clock, he identifies three fundamental ones:

The first, “High community support for adding FTO as an official event,” does appear in the official announcement. The second, “WCA leadership/partners/key stakeholders do not want to simply keep adding events,” is not mentioned in the official announcement. The third, the use of a framework, is also not mentioned in the official announcement.

If these three factors were fundamental, why does only one of them —the one concerning FTO— appear in the official announcement? For the community, knowing from the outset which factors were taken into account would have been an exercise in transparency.

Much has already been written about the other factors mentioned in the official announcement throughout many of the 936 messages in this topic. But I would like to highlight something that I find revealing. One of the great strengths of the work carried out by WCA teams is documentation. Everything is on the website, and information can be found relatively easily.

In this regard, a forum post published in April 2020 by the user “anon15469897”, entitled “Remove/Keep Clock”, is particularly striking. I encourage you to read it because what was being discussed in the context of Clock in 2020 is very interesting. Two things stand out:

First, read what this user wrote at the beginning of the post:

“This is not a proposal to remove clock as an event since we currently don’t have a system laid out to remove events; rather, this is for the future so that when such a system is in place they can look here while making decisions.”

This user was a visionary! They were already pointing out the need for a system to remove events. In fact, the WCA itself had already acknowledged in 2019, following the removal of 3x3 With Feet, the “flaws in the process used for this decision” and committed to prioritising “a clear and transparent process for event changes in the future.”

Second, the official announcement gives almost exactly the same reasons for removing Clock as those written by this user in 2020:

• Clock “remains highly prone to incidents”
• Requires “different procedures and equipment compared to other events”
• Problems inherent to the nature/hardware of Clock
• “Clock is difficult to scramble correctly”
• Difficulties with scrambling/specific procedures
• “difficult to determine […] how much progress a competitor has made”
• “difficult to determine whether a Clock is solved”
• These characteristics reduce its spectator appeal
• Problems arising from “fundamental differences” compared with other events
• In contrast, in 2026 the Board acknowledges “significant interest in recent years”

The original 2020 post stated that Clock had “very few competitors / removing it would affect a small part of the competitor base,” but since that no longer applied —Clock was the seventh most participated event as of June 2026— the phrase “significant interest in recent years” was used instead.

And, of course, the concept of “Hardware has stagnated” no longer applies in 2026, since we all know the current market offers Clock models from several different brands.

Were arguments from 2020 really used to justify Clock’s removal in 2026? This raises the question: What analysis was carried out to determine that those problems still had the same relevance in 2026, six years later, in a completely different context for the Clock event? And if it was done, why hasn’t that data been provided? Was a decision affecting a significant part of this community really made on the basis of little more than a copy-paste from 2020?

So, where does that leave us? What were the fundamental factors that actually determined the decision? The ones explained in the official announcement, or Nick’s three fundamental factors? Because they are not the same.

Newcomer uptake rates were not relevant. Clock retention rates were not relevant. The rise in uptake rate was not relevant. Newcomers who choose it being more likely to attend is interesting, but in terms of absolute impact, is not a significant contributor to top-line KPIs, and so, also not relevant.

And finally, Nick states that the data mentioned above were not relevant because they did not contribute significantly to the “top-line KPIs.” A KPI is a quantifiable metric linked to a specific objective. If anyone is unsure what a KPI is, they can read about it here on Wikipedia.

What are the KPIs being referred to? How were they measured? What values or thresholds were used to determine which data were relevant when deciding whether to remove an event?

Neither the official announcement nor any of the subsequent communications on this forum have mentioned the KPIs that were used. Factors have been mentioned, not KPIs.

That is why, in order to avoid all these doubts and questions, we continue to emphasise that the framework is the working tool the Board should have used to make a decision based on criteria established in advance for the removal or addition of an event.

Thanks.

And to conclude this analysis of the information provided by Nick, I am going to address what, in my view, is actually the most serious aspect of the entire process.

“A more robust framework for adding/removing/tiering events was likely at least another year out, and actually utilizing that framework would probably add another year onto the timeline.”

I consider this the most serious aspect because time is being used as a justification for deciding not to wait for the tool that the WCA itself had identified as necessary to analyse a critical decision such as the removal of an event — in this case, Clock.

As has been pointed out in multiple posts on this Forum, for example here, the WCA relies on volunteers, people who dedicate part of their time to making all of this work. And I think that is perfectly fine. I have done this kind of work in other areas and currently do so in our speedcubing association, and it is “work” that requires a great deal of effort, can sometimes be thankless, and is unpaid. But being a volunteer does not mean that there is no RESPONSIBILITY and COMMITMENT to perform those duties to the best of one’s ability and in accordance with the procedures and objectives established by the organization itself. And when we are talking about the responsibility of the team that governs an entire institution, that is an even more serious matter, because they are the ones who set the direction of that institution.

Let’s get into the analysis! In Spain, we have a saying: “Haste is for bad bullfighters and thieves.” And, for the record, the Board members are neither bullfighters nor, of course, thieves.

So, this raises a number of questions, some of which have also been raised at different points by other users throughout this topic — and others. We believe we have an obligation to ask them and seek answers.

• Why the rush?
• What was the urgency?
• What specific problem would have been caused by keeping Clock as an official event until the framework was available?
• Was it really necessary to link the introduction of FTO to the removal of another event?
• Why not introduce FTO as the 18th event and subsequently evaluate the full set of events using the framework?
• What impact would temporarily having 18 events have had? Was this studied?
• What would the WCA have lost by waiting one or two years?
• Was there any economic, reputational, organizational, or competitive risk associated with maintaining 18 events?
• Was a risk analysis carried out to assess the risks of keeping or removing Clock? Because if there was no critical risk to the organization, the more PROPORTIONATE approach would have been to introduce FTO, keep Clock, develop the framework establishing the relevant criteria, and then evaluate all events to determine whether any should potentially be removed. Instead, a decision was made — described in Oliver’s August 19 post as “This decision is final” — without having the decision-making tool in place.
• Was the risk of not removing Clock really so high that this decision had to be made? As a reminder to readers, in the 4-pad announcement, certain risk factors and their impact on the community were assessed and analysed under the section “Main Concerns” Why, if this type of analysis was also carried out for Clock, was it not published alongside the June 24 announcement?
• What benefit — one that the rest of us cannot see — does the Board consider important enough to justify the removal of Clock?

When it is stated that:

“WCA leadership, partners, and key stakeholders believe that only adding new events is undesirable.”

I would like to bring back the questions raised by @Kymo_Hendriks in this post:

• Who are these “partners and key stakeholders”?
• Who are these supposed key stakeholders who apparently have more say in the WCA than the community does?

And regarding the final part of the third fundamental factor identified by Nick:

“…add another year onto the timeline.”

• What does “timeline” refer to?
• Who established it, and when?
• What are the milestones in that timeline, and what is its ultimate objective?
• Was meeting that timeline so critical that the Board made this decision — removing Clock — before developing and applying the framework it had identified as necessary?

As I said at the beginning, if the purpose of the framework was to provide a robust method for adding, removing, or tiering events, how can the time required to develop and apply that tool become a reason for making one of those decisions — removing Clock — before that tool is even available?

Answers to these questions would provide the traceability and transparency that we have requested from the very beginning, critically but always respectfully and politely.

Thanks.