Fewer catagories? Nah. We forget about the little guys who use a
vertical and 100W. They cherish the third place finish single band 10meter LP
assisted certificate in CQWW for the fourth district. For us big guns its
ZZZZZZZZZ, but to them it's important.
We should all remember when those trivial certificates got the premier
places on our walls in the shack....all because there were lots of categories.
Bill K4XS
In a message dated 11/27/2013 11:39:58 A.M. Coordinated Universal Ti,
pokane@ei5di.com writes:
On 27/11/2013 05:15, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> It is too bad the ARRL did not take the forward looking position and use
> this opportunity to allow all single ops to use spotting assistance.
These
> contests would benefit from less categories rather than more.
And why has K5ZD not already done the same for "his"
contest - CQWW? It's because a recent survey made it
clear that we, the SO entrants, didn't want it.
The only benefit of this move would be to CQ and ARRL.
As contest sponsors, they would be relieved of the
unwanted responsibility of identifying which single
ops used spotting assistance from other operators.
Wasn't that once known as Multi-Op? :-)
Fewer categories? Yes, why not? Let's take the
forward looking position and combine power levels.
And what about "classic" categories? Well, it's
obvious - real men don't need time off.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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
|