On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
> Rather than contemplating further restricting the Multi-One
> category, is
> there actually a consensus that something is wrong with the present-
> day
> implementations of M/S by the top stations?
When there is no functional difference between a M/M station and a M/S
station, the distinction is obviously artificial.
> A lot of people are obviously putting a lot of time (and money) into
> developing competitive strategies and setups for this category. So
> what
> if M/S stations are putting up ridiculously high scores. Aren't
> improvements and more activity a good thing and in fact what it should
> all be about?
Well, you make a point that is worth addressing. It's possible that
since the distinction is becoming moot, perhaps it is time to have
only one Multi station class.
As technology moves along strange changes happen. Heck, computer
logging was a big change. Skimmer is another. There are more. Our job
is to decide what is what. Too much of adapting new technology can
make contesting "not radio anymore" and too much holding back can make
a category irrelevant - which is to say that proponents of a mode or
method might have a very good point, but there may be too few other
participants to warrant a class.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|