Here's my two cents...
As has been stated you can never have a level playing field with the qualifying
method currently being used. While appointments from Contest Clubs may or may
not be an improvement over what we have now, that could have problems of its
own. For example, selection of one representative from W5 (6 states and
guessing between a quarter and half million square miles) by one or more
contest groups could be a problem. I doubt there is a contest club within 250
miles of where I live.
I don't know how to accommodate phone operation but CW could be handled using
software for qualifying. It could be available at hamfests with supervision
and rules regarding how many attempts during the qualifying period. That's a
pretty level playing field and after a proper software program was written, has
a cost of next to nothing.
73... Stan, K5GO
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:31 PM, David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I was fortunate to go to the 1996 WRTC in San Francisco with my operating
> partner K5GO. We finished tenth from a modest station, met a lot of great
> people, and had a great time. Back in those days, the team leaders were
> selected by recognized contest clubs or the national radio organizations, and
> the leaders picked their operating partner.
>
> One or two WRTCs later, the sponsors decided the had a better idea, to use a
> ranking system based on relevant, recent contest scores. However the
> contests and the ranking method changes from year to year, creating
> controversy and no consistency. And now people are complaining about
> cheating and whether you had access to a big station to earn your
> qualification.
>
> I think the old way, with contest clubs or national organizations nominating
> participants was a heckuva lot better. No controversy about qualifying
> contests, and local groups are usually in a better position to monitor
> contest ethics. It also provides such groups with a reason to support WRTC
> financially.
>
> I think there is a groundswell of apathy towards WRTC within most clubs and
> organizations these days because of the controversies being raised, the fact
> that these groups no longer have any vested interest in it, and the current
> selection process is seen as elitist. And now it's getting to the point that
> even the elites don't agree...
>
> Even as a WRTC alumni, I have to a great extent lost interest in WRTC and
> know others who feel the same. I certainly wish it no ill will, but...
>
> Dave, K8CC
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:02 PM, <kr2q@optimum.net> <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am certainly not the first to state the obvious, but it is worth repeating.
>>
>> What sense does it make to cheat to qualify for WRTC where cheating is
>> impossible thanks to
>> good rules, real time observers, and meticulous log reviews post-contest
>> with excellent
>> post-contest decisions as "new" situations arise.
>>
>> Without pointing fingers (I don't have enough fingers), qualifying is,
>> sadly, already a lot like the
>> real Olympics. Time to clean both up.
>>
>> I wish all contests had the resources to follow Ranko's suggestions. Even
>> better, I wish all
>> entrants would simply follow the rules and the spirit of contesting.
>>
>> de Doug KR2Q
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|