On 07/12/2014 15:12, Christian Janssen wrote:
The current qualification rules are the result of long and intensive
discussions and a unanimous decision of the WRTC2018 Organizing
Committee. We are most grateful for the discussions in various mailing
lists and the useful contributions we have received from them.
Q: Why are Assisted, Non-Assisted, Single Band and Single Mode in the
same category?
A: The main reason is to simplify the rules and to promote the
competition by concentrating operators in only few categories.
Why, then, have the rules not been simplified by placing
QRP, LP and HP in the same category? It seems to me this
would serve equally well to concentrate operators in fewer
categories.
We do not intend to rate down the skills known from the good old times,
The "good old times" are right now. DL1MGB claims the
Organising Committee did not intend to "rate down the
skills", and yet that is precisely, after intensive
discussions, what they have unanimously agreed to. At
least no one can accuse them of consistency.
nor do we plan to include the use of the DX-Cluster in the WRTC2018.
Why not? If use of the DX-Cluster is the only viable
option for WRTC qualification, it doesn't make sense
to exclude this option in WRTC2018. Again, I detect
a certain lack of consistency.
Meanwhile using assisted technologies has become a facet of
contesting. A contester these days should also be able to use them
wisely.
All relevant technologies assist. What DL1MGB's term
"assisted" really means is internet-hosted spotting.
Since there appears to be a general consensus that
anyone not using the DX-Cluster would be unlikely to
qualify for WRTC 2018, it follows that all competitors
will be well-qualified in this facet of contesting.
Shouldn't we expect them to use it wisely in WRTC2018?
There have been a number of changes in the past that are common today.
Then why is the most significant change in the past
that is common today, internet-hosted spotting, not
permitted in WTC2018?
In summary, I submit that the Committee's unanimous
response to this issue is poorly thought out, is
riddled with inconsistencies, and should be reconsidered.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|