CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] KILLING THE GOLDEN GOOSE

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KILLING THE GOLDEN GOOSE
From: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Didn't think it would make a big difference if I participated or not in  
WAE. However, over the years I passed out thousands of Qs and  QTC. It's not a 
whole lot different than boycotting a store when you  disagree with their 
policies.  One person does not make a difference but  many can.  I wrote a 
letter to DARC stating my thoughts.  However,  it's their contest and they can 
run it anyway they want.  But, it's  my station and I'll choose to operate 
in WAE or not...no hard  feelings.
 
By the way I used to do the 10-10 contest seriously and won it several  
times.  I no longer do so since they have decided you must be a current  member 
to win.  Again, no hard feelings, it's their contest.  I just  don't do 
that one anymore.  If others choose not to do a contest, then that  contest 
slowly fades away...like the FL QSO Party of the 70s and 80.   The FL QSO Party 
was brought back to life in the 90s with new rules and is now  one of the 
major QSO Parties.
 
I don't claim to have all the answers, but over 50 years of contesting give 
 me the right to speak with some knowledge of what contesting is all about  
and what it's future should be.  W0UA and K5GO have earned their  stripes 
too and have been around about as long as I have.  They are not  rookies and 
what they as well as others (like K5ZD, K3LR et al)say should  carry some 
weight.
 
K4XS
 
In a message dated 3/18/2013 11:11:37 A.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,  
w2up@comcast.net writes:
 
I guess  if K5GO, W0UA and you already know the answers, there is no 
point in doing  the survey and soliciting thousands or opinions.

BTW, the WAE hasn't  been the same without you...  :-)

Barry W2UP

On 3/17/2013  09:23, Cqtestk4xs@aol.com wrote:
> Both K5GO and W0UA are right on the  mark.  Although I have begun to do
> assisted, many (perhaps the  majority) of serious contesters do not.  The
> concept of combining  both into one category makes no sense to me.
>   
> We  want to encourage more participation, not discourage it.  By   passing
> such a rule, it would discourage many of the purists (no  packet) from
> operating as is evidenced by the posts on this  reflector.  It would also 
 cut down
> some categories.   Any time you cut the categories you deprive guys  from
> winning a  certificate.  That piece of paper on the wall is what  drives  
many
> guys.  Third place in W4-40 meters low power may not mean  much  to the 
big
> guns, but it means a lot to a little gun who can  put that paper on  his 
wall.
>   
> I stopped  operating the WAE when they eliminated the HF bracket and also
>  combined all entries into one class whether or not they were assisted  or
> not.  Shame, since I was a serious participant and won several  of  the 
"license
> plates" in the 90s.
>   
>  Let's not combine the classes, please!  make sure you let the boys  at  
CQ
> know about this in their survey.
>    
> Bill K4XS/KH7XS
>   
>   
> In  a message dated 3/17/2013 3:07:40 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,
>  W0ua@aol.com writes:
>
> KILLING  THE GOLDEN  GOOSE
>
>
> I don't do these forum-things as a rule, but  my  friend K5GO tipped me
> that
> there was a serious (?)  suggestion about  "combining" the SOAB and SO (A)
>  categories.  Apparently there  was a survey sent around, but I  surely
> wasn't
> aware of it. (As an  aside, I have to  wonder how many more like me, 
who've
> been  in nearly  every  major CQ HF Contest over the last several years,
> were
>  similarly  unaware this was happening?  How many of those who   received 
the
> survey  might be "casual" entrants as opposed to  serious  SOAB-types?)
> Anyway,
> thanks for the heads-up,  Stan, and   I think I've seen enough of the
> discussion to  pitch a few marbles  into the ring...
>
> First, "combining"  is a nice word that doesn't really  mean what it says 
 in
>   
> this discussion.  What's being put  forward  is eliminating the SOAB
> category, in favor of the  "Assisted"  category.   I've seen it said  here
>  that 33
> percent of the  single-op entries are "Assisted."  I  take from  this, 
then,
> that  66 percent reside in the  nominal SOAB category.  That  sounds like 
a
> pretty healthy  majority to me--surely not an anachronism ripe for   the
>  scrap
> heap!  I submit that SOAB remains the greatest challenge  in  the  contest
> game,
> requiring the highest levels  of skill, dedication  and  endurance--which 
is
> why it  attracts so many of those folks for  whom those  qualities  are
> valued.
> This catgeory comprises a big share  of the  best operators  on this
> planet--who should likewise be   highly-valued by the contest  sponsors!
> So, am I
> getting  this  right--that the majority category...the  category with  so
> many
> outstanding competitors--the one presenting the  highest   challenge--this
> is the
> one we would even  consider eliminating?  The  tail  should wag the dog,  
you
> say?   That can't be right--I  must be  missing  something here?
>
> I saw mention made that we   need to get with the "new normal" in
> contesting.
> I'm guessing  that this  implies Internet assistance.  Hasn't that already
>  been fully  accepted?  As it stands, The "Assisted" category even  runs 
to
> single-band entrants.  33 percent may not be a majority  but it is a
> sizable
> group and I think they've been nicely  accommodated--there  are clearly 
lots
> of
> folks who enjoy  and prefer this mode--and all the  categories have been
>  provided  to support them.  I'm not into  "Assisted" myself,  but if it
> floats
> peoples'  boats and gets them on   the air, that's all good.  So, where's
> the
> problem   in all this  that requires kicking nominal SOAB to the curb?
>  Again,  I must be missing something here?
>
> I notice that  the  subject of cheating comes up in this chat, and with it
> come  a couple  of troubling implications:
>
> (1)  That  cheating (of the  Internet variety) is taking place among   
SOAB
> entrants
>
> (2)  That this purported cheating  cannot always be detected  and
> ajudicated
> by the  sponsors
>
> Certainly, SOAB is the most  "cheatable"  category--I'm sure it does 
happen.
>   
> That  acknowledged,  you can call me naive, but I don't think Internet
>  cheating is  either  significant or widespread in the SOAB  category.
> But...let's
> just  say for a moment that it  was:  Would the proper response  be to
> surrender to   the cheaters and eliminate the mainstream  category because
>  it's
> "cheatable?"  I enter SOAB contests  believing that the  overwhelming and
> pervasive ethic is for  operating--as I do--on  honorable terms.  
Further, I
>   trust
> the   sponsors and administrators to protect the integrity of their events
>  to
> the very best of their abilities and resources.  I think we  have  to
> accept
> some factors as articles-of-faith--and we  seem to have a  majority of
> entrants willing to do just  that.  Eliminating our  category-of-choice
> seems   a
> rather shabby reward for our trust and  devotion over not just  years, but
> decades.
>
> I noticed  one post here  which posited that, in effect, this is all just
> about  fun,  leisure, relaxation.  Playing 18 holes in the sun on a May
>  afternoon is fun.  Fly-fishing in a mountain stream is   leisurely.   
That
> is, unless
> you're striving to beat  your best  golf score or competing in  
stroke-play
> against  the club champ.   Or, perhaps you're tracking fish  caught, in  a
> friendly game with  your buddies.  If there's  competition  involved (even
> with
> yourself), that always  seems to add a little urgency to the   
proceedings.
>  The
> SOAB competition--arguably the toughest, the  most   individualistic test 
of
> all--is about as "urgent" as it gets   among it's skilled,  dedicated and
> perennial devotees.   Kill  that off while it's still in its  prime and
>  you're
> amputating a  healthy limb.  Why would anyone want to  do  that?  I must 
be
> missing something  here...
>
>
> Geo   W0UA
>  _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>