> Does anyone have any thoughts on what the QST editorial board
> really wants in the way of contesting feature articles?
> I've published multiple articles in the NCJ and CQ Contest that
> I first sent in to QST. They were all rejected because they feature
> contesting and contesting was of "limited interest."
I was asked to write an introduction to contesting that appeared in the
November 2000 QST under the title, "Discover the Wonderful World of
Contesting" (my title, so don't blame the editors if you think it's lame!)
In that particular case, the editors wanted an article that would cover the
basics of contesting and spotlight a few of the big ARRL contests. The
editors' intent was to get readers interested in contesting (which would be,
I might add, of great benefit to those of us who love contesting.)
Why did they ask me to write the article? After all, there are hundreds or
thousands of contesters who could have written it. I think the main reasons
were proximity and familiarity with my writing style. I was working with HQ
staff on the design for the Logbook of the World and happened to get into a
discussion with a staffer about the Alpha 87A AlphaMax/AlphaRemote upgrade.
Since I was more familiar with using the upgrade than anyone at HQ, they
asked me to write a review. It appeared in the August 2000 issue. My guess
is that they were already familiar with my writing style and knew how much I
love contesting, and that's why they asked for the second article. They
wanted a two-pager and I had trouble getting it under four! I was very busy
with work at the time, so one of the editors was kind enough to cut it down
for me. He did a nice job.
Even though I disagreed with the decision to remove line scores, I don't
think the editorial staff dislikes contesting or thinks there is no hope of
trying to lead readers to it (after all, many of the HQ staff are
world-class contesters who love it as much as we do.) Had the article been
too narrow ("Bandpass Stubs and In-line Filtering for Multi-Multi
Operations") or too intimidating ("How I Nabbed My 87th Mult on 80M before
Passing Out from Sleep Deprivation"), potential newbies would probably have
skipped the article. I don't need to see advanced contesting topics in QST.
NCJ, CQ Contest and the web are OK for that. I want to see the box scores,
line scores, some general technical articles, and some articles on operating
that capture how exciting and rewarding it can be.
73, Dick WC1M
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>From Silver Ward" <hwardsil1@mindspring.com Wed Jan 23 07:54:47 2002
From: Silver Ward" <hwardsil1@mindspring.com (Silver Ward)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Time to Get Off the Pot
References: <3.0.6.32.20020122204323.007ab3f0@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <009401c1a3e3$3b74d260$b9e7bfa8@ward>
Bob
1) My first post was to disagree with the initial panic over contest
coverage being pulled from QST. This was clearly not the case according to
K1RO's post but confusion between contest coverage and line scores persists
still. Now, if you don't want to believe what Mark said in his post, I
can't do much about that. W1VU's suggestion was, you will recall, that we
boycott the ARRL - a guaranteed self-defeating action if ever there was one.
Yet, it's true, if there hadn't been a stink made by OJ and VU, then we
wouldn't be having this debate. I stand by every one of my assertions that
contest coverage as it now exists is obsolete, a gross waste of print media
resources and in need of a major overhaul. Thinking big is exactly what is
needed, and thanks for those words.
2) Then the discussion turned to whether the board was attempting to
circumvent debate and "pull a fast one". There have been times when I have
had serious objections to the way the League has done business (Scarborough
Reef comes to mind), but in general, I have not found the need to
automatically assume the worst. Some would apparently take an opposing
stance if the Board resolved that 2+2=4. While Walt's text reads strangely,
it doesn't take much in an email to completely obscure or even reverse your
intent (witness my CAC signature). Rather than hoist him with his own
petard, I prefer to wait and see. As you have observed, cooler heads
prevailed (after getting a lot of input from us, it's true), and I continue
to trust in the relative safety of representative organization.
3) As far as bashing potsitters goes, I am exhorting folks to get beyond
expressing their unhappiness and use that energy to take some positive steps
for the sport beyond lighting up the contest reflector. No, this group is
not the problem - but if all the energy goes to self-congratulatory puffery
on the reflector, then what good are we going to achieve? I included my CAC
"badge" to say, "I'm trying to be part of the solution" - not an attempt to
claim any sort of privilege or position. Sorry if it was taken as any sort
of special dispensation - I'll try to learn from how that was perceived.
You are probably close to the truth and this is really the opening
discussion of "wither ARRL contesting". Every major ARRL contest apparently
generates a flood of discontent - right or wrong. With what is it
counterbalanced? I have made the suggestion to the Big Project folks that
contesting is probably one of the keys to attracting young people to ham
radio and holding them. As I said a couple posts back, "The League is going
to have to stop mumbling about contesting and put it right out there in
front..." Is the League willing to promote and support contesting or not?
I think we're about to find out.
Thanks for taking the time to voice your objections reasonably. It's
perfectly OK to question the quality of my analysis and objectivity without
name-calling. We can have a debate of issues and I won't even mind if you
sidle up a little too close on 20-meter phone in the contests.
73, Ward N0AX
(no special signature)
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Marston <k1ta@contesting.com>
To: Silver Ward <hwardsil1@mindspring.com>
Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>; W7OZ Greg Milnes
<gmilnes1@email.msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time to Get Off the Pot
> Ward
>
> I've been following this matter with a keen interest as events have
> unfolded. I have been licensed since 1972 and a contester since 1974. I
> have been a Life Member of the ARRL from 1974. I also reside in the ARRL
> Division in which you serve as the CAC Rep. I was shocked by the news of
> what the Bod was considering action on. But the way some ARRL Staffers and
> League Officials chose to deal with this matter once the cat was let out
of
> the bag left me aghast and incredulous. Were it not for diligance, quick
> thinking and prompt action of K4OJ, K1VU and other "Pot Dwellers", K1RO
and
> W0CP with the unwitting cooperation of the ARRL Board would have pulled
off
> a fast one last weekend. To them the entire Contest Community owes a debt
> of gratitude! Thank you Jim and Thank you Bob.
>
> While the matter of publishing line scores in QST is certainly important
> the way certain league officials conducted themselves during this process
> calls in to question the league's commitment to contesting. Were it not
for
> the cool heads of a majority of the board members I also would have
> questioned its integrity. And in that respect the process worked. Ward
from
> my view point your post is little more than a defense of these staffers.
> And it is apparent to me that you left your objectivity aside when you
> wrote it.
>
> There are only a handful posts on this matter that have major
> significance in this argument, here is my abreviated recap
>
> 1) K4OJ and K1VU upon learning of the Bod's agenda post a number of
threads
> on the subject
>
> 2) QST Publisher Mark Wilson, K1RO, responds with his own thread. To
> paraphrase him he says "we aren't eliminating contest converage just
> changing it around". Well some reports suggest the Mark Wilson's
statements
> on their face are disingenuious. Those have yet to be substantiated. But
it
> was clear to me at the outset that this was little more than a "Selling
> Job". What was undetermined was the size of the loss to the contest
> community if this measure passed. Mr Wilson insults our intelligence with
> this ploy. He seems to think we just fell off a turnip truck. You're a
real
> Company Man Mark
>
> 3) After the Bod tabled the motion the Finance Director of the Board,
W0CP,
> posted his explaination of events along with a veiled threat. The
> arroaganced displayed by a sitting board member is beyond belief. In so
> many words he states that the process only functions is to validate the
> board's decisions therefore we will "tabled this issue, will give it a
> hearing and then pass it in July". I liken this to the ole "You will be
> given a fair trail after which you will be shot!" Gary Ferdinand, W2CS,
> wrote an excellent response I recommend you reread it Ward.
>
> 4) Then you decide to don your CAC Badge and post your own message telling
> us we are the problem. You are reversing the role of victim and
> perpetrater. The Contest Community was minding its own business when
> certain individuals in the League took it upon themselves to reverse 50+
> years of tradition.
>
> Ward the more I think about what has transpired over the last week the
more
> the idea of removing line scores from QST becomes secondary. Do you know
> why ? Because past events have lead me to conclude that the ARRL is
hinting
> to us that sponsoring contests is burden that they don't want to deal with
> anymore. If such is the case I think the contest community should rally
its
> troops to relieve the ARRL of this burden once and for all. A few months
> ago Bill Fisher needed to raise funds to upgrade hardware here on the
> Reflector. Their campaign netted more than the necessary funds before you
> could bat an eye. With a little bit of doing we could come up with our own
> version of "The Big Project". I would hope that K1IR's group will have the
> foresight, energy, resources and courage to think big.
>
>
> Bob Marston K1TA
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|