--- Robert Naumann <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I may be mistaken, but I recall that you became
> actively involved in contesting relatively recently.
You are mistaken, I'm afraid. I've been licensed and
contesting since 1976. I even lead my local club to
several national championships in the middle 1980's
(when I still had enough hair to be classified as
Even so...I don't see how that is germain to the
discussion here. You bringing it up is no more fair
to me than someone saying, Bob...you've been around
for too long and have too much of a vested interest in
the "staus quo" to take your comments seriously. :)
I hope that we can agree to scoot past this.
> The categories that exist today were in large part
> created by operators - not the contest sponsors.
This is a matter of symantics. The fact is that
sponsors create the contest (including rules,
restrictions, categories and ajudication) by
definition. Contestants can demand all they want (and
vote by their pariticipation), but the sponsor is in
full control A-to-Z.
In fact, this is the crux of the "call for creative
thought". (!) "What if categories were eliminated by
a sponsor and replaced with a mechanism to report both
score *and* the conditions under which that score was
> It used to be, before my time, that there only was
> single op. Then we got multi-op, then multi-multi,
> multi-single, high, low, QRP, single band, etc.
Yes, yes! This is *exactly* what I was referring to
whan I used the term "chaos" to descibe the state of
operation by contestants (and the problems that
attempting to pidgeon-hole or "classify" operation can
--- Examples ---
Somewhere along the line, somebody said, "No fair!"
when their 100-watt station couldn't compete against a
1500 watt station, so "LP" and "HP" came in to
existance (when the SPONSOR said so). Then somebody
said "No fair!" when an African station *legally*
(according to lore) operated with 50,000 watts and the
SPONSORS invoked a world-wide (and USA-centric, I
might add) 1500 watt power limit.
As proof that the world is ruled by sponsors...VHFers
had a hissy fit when 4-rovers grid-circled to
mega-point scores...yet in that case, the SPONSOR (by
the way...that's emphasis...I'm not yelling) said,
Sponsors control categories and rules. Operators
> ... you may
> not know that what you think should be done - was
> in fact already done - and had led to what the
> party looks like now.
What is being proposed has not been done before. The
party looks the way it does now because Sponsors chose
to create categories rather than simply stating the
obvious: MM's will score higher than SO's. SOHP will
socre higher than SOLP, who will in turn score higher
than SOQRP. Big deal...physics is at play.
Without sponsor-predefined categories (but with a
"Station Configuration List") we get a continuous
spectrum of scores (highest to lowest) along with data
that tells us the technology behind those scores. As
an aside, this would (1) require suspension of our
belief in sponsor-lead recognician-entitlement by
category, (2) release enough data that anyone (really,
anyone!) could sponsor awards for the "winner" of any
combination of station parameters (talk about
enabling!). NOTE: Kudos to the Stew Perry sponsors
who seem to be the HF competition that is closest to
this vision, btw!
I'll ask again (if anyone is still reading at this
point <g>)...would anyone like to try an HF event with
this philosophy as a core-premise as a bit of a "test
flight"? THAT could be COOL!
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
CQ-Contest mailing list