Bob and Nate's comments say it all from my perspective. If there is no hard
data to support a change in M/S leave it alone (or seek to conduct a pole,
however unscientific that may be)...
BUT, if it's a matter of creating more "opportunities" as Randy put it,
whatever he meant by that, then why not experiment with a M/1 category and
see how it goes?
Happy Thanksgiving and GL in the WW...
73,
Andrew
W7VJ
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:26:11 -0500
From: "Robert L. Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Proposed rule change Summary
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <37736A8DF10B49B5BBF52F5E23619750@DCWRFRG1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Having read all the posts on the M/S rule change proposed
by K5ZD, two things have become clear.
1) The majority of posters on CQ-Contest are NOT in
favor of the rule change. In fact, they are quite vocal
in their opposition to it! Most have said "Leave M/S alone"
and they have spoken loudly and clearly.
2) I asked K5ZD to please provide any data that supports
the rationale for his proposed rule change. He avoided any reply
except to send me the url of his blog.
I looked at the data from the WPX Survey.
http://www.cqwpx.com/blog/?p=46
Randy only summarized the 1/3 of the responses
that actually had operated in the M/S category.
(I'm not sure why the other 2/3 were left out since some
of these ops might eventually operate the M/S category)
The tabulated results quite clearly showed that a
MAJORITY, 50%+ did **NOT** want a change in M/S!
A significant percentage wanted only a slight change in the
number of band changes or a "10-minute rule" for the
SECOND transmitter..
*NOWHERE* in the data provided did it show a percentage
of people that wanted M/S to be changed to ONE-TRANSMITTER only!.
In fact, the question "Do you think that the M/S category should be
ONE-TRANSMITTER ONLY, was NEVER asked!
Randy, without that question being asked, how can you possibly
think that a consensus exists to fundamentally change
the M/S category to one-transmitter?
It appears that Randy has proposed to make a major category
change based on NO DATA to support it! This seems to
be a unilateral decision on his part despite clear opposition.
I am also not sure why Randy would send me the url of a DIFFERENT
Survey question to support his proposal for a major rule change?
Based on:
A) A question that was NOT asked,
B) Data from the Survey that showed that a clear majority did
NOT want a change in the M/S category rules, and
C) A clear majority of CQ-Contest posters who do NOT
want the M/S category changed to ONE-transmitter,
>From a reading of the data that we DO have, it is clear to me that this
proposed
rule should be rescinded with the M/S category staying as it is - One RUN
station
PLUS One MULT station
I hope that Randy will look at his own data and respect the clear wishes of
the
contest participants to keep M/S category in it's present form.
If not, it will be because he chose to ignore the wishes of the WPX
contesters
and ignore data that is in opposition to his proposed rule change. That
would
set a BAD precedent and the decision would be a bad one for the contest.
73 & Happy Thanksgiving
Bob KQ2M
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:53:52 -0600
From: Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Proposed rule change Summary
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <20091125235352.GC3092@n0nb.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
For those that like the current MS class I say leave it in place.
That said, I do think that there is a place for a true M1 class. Some
years back three of us operated CQ WW DX and had a lot of fun. The
only thing was is that it was impossible to compare our performance to
others like us who only had one radio on the desk and one set of
antennas in the air. I would be interested in fielding a group and
participating in an M1 class in the future, but not in the current MS
class.
The only problem I see with adding another class is that soon demand
will cause the MM to become split into M3, M4, M5, and M6, sigh.
73, de Nate >>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|