I think some of the more serious elite operators like SOU because they feel a
sense of accomplishment that they pushed their operating skills to the limit
without help from anyone. Add spots to that and it changes everything. Plus in
the major contests there is a sense of accomplishment even if you for example
just make the top 10 with an accomplished group of good operators.If you add
spots to the equation you could possibly lose a contest because your internet
went down? That has nothing to do with operating skill.There's really no
justification to can SOU based on the data in WPX's own scores
database.JeffSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Randy Thompson <k5zd@outlook.com> Date:
11/20/20 2:31 PM (GMT-05:00) To: ktfrog007@aol.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW The poll was
not scientific, but there was sufficient response that it could be considered
representative.https://cqww.com/blog/2015-cq-ww-survey-results-part-1/https://cqww.com/blog/2015-cq-ww-survey-results-part-2/Part
2 has the most relevant data for this discussion. Bear in mind that the
survey was 5 years ago and opinions may have changed.K5ZD-----Original
Message-----From: CQ-Contest
<cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com> On Behalf Of AB1J via
CQ-ContestSent: Friday, November 20, 2020 1:44 PMTo: rjairam@gmail.com;
cosson-dimitri@bbox.frCc: cq-contest@contesting.comSubject: Re: [CQ-Contest]
Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CWHow was the survey conducted? Is it
representative of the contest community? Self-selected surveys are seldom
accurate.In addition, it was taken five years ago. Times change.Even carefully
conducted polls can be wrong.73,Ken, AB1J-----Original Message-----From:
rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>To: dimitri <cosson-dimitri@bbox.fr>Cc:
cq-contest@contesting.comSent: Fri, Nov 20, 2020 3:30 pmSubject: Re:
[CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CWIf the vast majority support
the changes, why does the survey data say otherwise?73RiaN2RJOn Fri, Nov 20,
2020 at 4:38 AM dimitri <cosson-dimitri@bbox.fr> wrote:> Hi Bud and CC,>> Well
said.> Given the fact that almost only dissatisfied people express >
themselves/stirs up the dust (that's how humans work), we can deduce > that the
VAST majority of contesters are not against these rule > changes for the
WPX.>>> Thanks very much for the work/time done for all of us>> 73 de Dimitri
F4DSK>> >>>>> Le 20 nov. 2020 à 03:33, à 03:33, Bud Trench
<aa3b.bud@gmail.com> a écrit:> >Thank you all for your inputs. I have my
convictions on the rule > >changes and I own them. I have provided the
rationale in a fully > >transparent manner. I believe the revised rule are in
the long term > >best interest of WPX and stand by them.> >> >Lastly, the
sentiments provided below are FAR from universal.> >> >Regards,> >> >Bud
Trench, AA3B> >> >-----Original Message-----> >From: Hal Offutt
<hal@japancorporateresearch.com>> >Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:45 PM>
>To: Richard Smith <n6kt1@sbcglobal.net>; cq-contest@contesting.com; > >Bud
Trench <aa3b.bud@gmail.com>> >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ
WW WPX SSB / CW> >> >Rich,> >> >I agree 100% with your conclusion but I think
you are being a little > >hard on Bud. Bud is one of the good guys. He's a
devoted contester, > >a> >> >great op and a radio friend to many of us. Rather
than wanting to > >play> >> >around with the rules for his own excitement and
intrigue, I think it > >more likely that he is being pressured by individuals
involved in the > >WPX management to do something that he probably doesn't
really support.> >> >At least I hope that's the case. But it's a black box,
and therein > >lies the problem: no transparency, no consultation with fellow
> >competitors and sudden unilateral surprises.> >> >It has been made
abundantly clear that this decision is unwelcome to > >a very large number of
serious contesters. Even those who prefer > >assisted operating have no
interest in preventing their their fellow > >contesters from competing in the
way they prefer.> >> >The real question now is whether the WPX leadership -
whoever it is - > >has the courage to admit their mistake and reverse this
divisive > >decision. And think about a better process for rule making in the
> >future.> >> >We'll find out soon.> >> >73, Hal W1NN> >> >> >On 11/20/2020
7:42 AM, Richard Smith wrote:> >> Hi Bud,> >>> >> It's too bad that you don't
seem to have respect for operators who> >compete the contest for which you are
now director.> >>> >> It seems that you intend to change the rules of the WPX
Contest > >> based> >on your own desires to play with the contest rules for
your own > >excitement and intrigue. I pulled a couple of sentences from your>
>email:> >>> >> Bud wrote: "I am particularly excited about the possibilities
of > >> increased levels of performance (and> >scores) in> >> the Single
Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are> >available> >> to all
competitors. .... The possibilities are intriguing."> >>> >> A lot of serious
contesters have put huge effort into WPX Contest> >operations and are rightly
proud of their accomplishments. Does > >removing a category also result in the
removal of the score records > >for which they strived? Will the SOAB World
Records and the other > >records now be discarded, and the huge efforts to
achieve them now go > >unheralded? Would that show respect for the Contesters
who achieved > >those scores?> >>> >> I'm wondering what other categories will
be dropped in the future, > >> if> >the idea intrigues you? Will Multi-Two and
Multi-Multi be combined > >next year? Will QRP be combined with Low Power?
Will SO2R be > >combined with Multi-Single?> >>> >> Sometimes I like to think
about Contesting in relation to other> >sports. I think of Contesting as
Radiosport. In that vein, I think > >about Olympic Sports. Would the Olympic
Committee combine the 100m > >run with the 100m hurdles? Would they put the
Javelin and Shotput > >together as one event?> >>> >> I would seriously ask you
to rescind the rules changes that you > >> have> >posted, and ask for inputs
from the competitors who participate in > >the WPX Contest, before making
changes.> >>> >> 73, Rich, N6KT, PJ4K, HC8A, etc.> >>> >> On Monday,
November 16, 2020, 05:47:05 PM PST, Bud Trench> ><aa3b.bud@gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> >> The rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW are now posted at the CQ WW WPX>
>Website <> >> https://www.cqwpx.com/rules.htm >.> >>> >>> >>> >> The creation
of the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category was> >triggered by> >> the
significant reductions in Multi-operator entries in 2020 as a> >result of> >>
COVID-19. Further, it is fully anticipated that COVID-19 will > >> impact>
>the> >> heritage multi-op participants again in 2021. I view 2021 as a > >>
test> >case> >> for the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category, from which we
will> >make> >> adjustments based on lessons learned.> >>> >>> >>> >> The
reasons for allowing QSO alerting systems in all Single Op> >Categories> >>
(except the Classic Overlay) have been provided. I am particularly> >excited>
>> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and> >scores)
in> >> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are>
>available> >> to all competitors. How will the top Single Ops from previous >
>> years> >adjust> >> their operating strategies given that all competitors can
leverage> >increased> >> access to multipliers and high valued QSOs resulting
from QSO> >alerting> >> systems? The possibilities are intriguing.> >>> >>>
>>> >> I anticipated that some participants would prefer to have the > >>
option> >to> >> compete without using QSO alerting system, so the Single Op
Classic> >Overlay> >> was continued after its inaugural authorization in the
2020 WPX> >contests.> >>> >>> >>> >> The Single Op Classic Overlay category,
which was first introduced > >> in> >WPX in> >> 2020, was shortened from 36
hours to 24 hours to be consistent with> >the> >> Classic Overlay category
definition used in CQ WW DX. The Single > >> Op Classic Overlay continues to
support separate scoring and awards > >> in> >the High> >> Power and Low Power
categories.> >>> >>> >>> >> 73,> >>> >>> >>> >> Bud AA3B> >>> >>> >>> >>
_______________________________________________> >> 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>
_______________________________________________> CQ-Contest mailing list>
CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest_______________________________________________CQ-Contest
mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|