Chris said:
Of course you are always free to discuss the qualification rules and we are
always open to any comment. But with the discussions we followed on
different mailing lists and the feedback we got from several contesters, we
came to the conclusion that there is no reason to make changes to the
already published rules (expcept the two typos we already corrected).
73s Chris DL1MGB
President WRTC2018 Organizing Committee
It seems from Chris' statement that he and his team has carefully evaluated
the debate on "different mailing lists" and listened to feom "several"
contesters, and that there is no doubt that the contest community is in
favour of double standards. I doubt that statement, sorry. The decision to
value Assisted and Unassisted with same weight is not logical.
First of all, many of the qualification contests alrady allow clusters and
RBN (WAE, RDXC, All Asian to mention some). In those contests, if selected
by the WRTC qualifying stations, everyone will allready work Assisted. If
you are a contester that feel that Assisted is your cup of tea, then the
bulk of your qualification can already be done assisted that way.
Secondly, if Germans allow Assisted in qualification, then there is beyond
all sense and doubt, not logical that it is prohibited in the WRTC itself.
Inconsistency will rule.
Chris, I would like you to crawl out of the box, and not hide the face from
reality. Show us the fact and figures, not the biased opinions, that the
contesting community is in favour of these double standards - to allow
Assisted in qualification but to run a completely different game in the
WRTC event itself. Make a survey between previous WRTC participants in at
least 2010 and 2014, with NEUTRAL questions, asking for their view of this
whole issue.
I am following many contest reflectors in the world, in different
langauges, and for sure I have not been able to make the same conclusion
like you, that there is overwhelming support for your non-logical desicion
to equalize assisted with unassisted.
Please note that I am not against assisted. I just want and different
weight between unassisted and assisted. The more logical from my experience
is to have a 0,8 factor for Assisted and a 1,0 factor for unassisted. For
contests where there is only assisted allowed, there is nothing to discuss.
Just bite in the sour apple and work assisted, as the rules themselves have
already defined one class.
And, last bot not least, where are all the Top Contesters with opinions
related to this subject. A few courageous top notch contesters have spoken
up to protect our hobby from "developing" into something way different from
what WRTC once was. Where are you other guys?
73 de Mats RM2D (SM6LRR)
2014-12-16 22:39 GMT+03:00 Christian Janssen DL1MGB <dl1mgb@wrtc2018.de>:
>
> Hi Ranko and others,
>
> regarding your calculations:
>
> The 14 points assisted gets 1000 points.
> The 10 points unassisted gets 714 points.
>
> Of course you are always free to discuss the qualification rules and we
> are always open to any comment. But with the discussions we followed on
> different mailing lists and the feedback we got from several contesters, we
> came to the conclusion that there is no reason to make changes to the
> already published rules (expcept the two typos we already corrected).
>
> 73s Chris DL1MGB
> President WRTC2018 Organizing Committee
>
>
>
> Am 16.12.2014 15:30, schrieb 4O3A:
>
> Hi Chris,
>>
>> would you be so kind to clafiry what exactly mean definition below:
>>
>> *Assisted scores are compared against Unassisted scores.
>>
>> If someone make in CQWW as unassisted - 10 points
>> Another guy make in same contest as assisted - 14 points
>>
>> What are final scores for WRTC qualification? Both 1000, of Assisted
>> with 14 points gets 1000, and unassisted guy will get 1000 x 10/14?
>>
>> I am also curious - Does it have any sense to still discuss some
>> qualification rules, or rules are final, and comments are useless?
>>
>> 73
>> Ranko
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|