Hi,
Is this a joke? It can't be true in reality that the organizers meant to
have assisted and non-assisted in the same qualification category and the
scores compared to each other!
So far I thought the rules were clear that:
*Assisted scores are compared against Unassisted scores
And not opposite! Meaning that in case the unassisted winner scored higher
then assisted winner, the assisted winner would not get 1000 points but
proportionally less.
But surely the Unassisted scores can't be compared to Assisted and the
Unassisted winner downgraded from 1000 if the Assisted winner makes a higher
score.
They are in completely different categories.
If what you said below Chris is indeed true and not an interpretation
mistake then this it totally absurd.
And unfortunately what you say about following "feedback" and concluding
something is also absurd. If indeed you had asked for feedback officially I
am sure that me as well as many other contesters would have given you clear
feedback. Now it seemed just a waste of time to lament in some mailing list
organizers having already shown that they could not care less about the
opinion of the contesting community by not giving them any chance to comment
the draft of the qualification rules before actually announcing them final.
Did you ever ask for any feedback prior to announcing the "final" rules? I
did not see.
Naturally I am strongly supporting the numerous requests in the very list
about reducing the number of qualification events and/or prolonging the time
from 2 years to 3 (2 years and 12 contests simply puts such a burden on
entrants that not the best but those having the time and resources will
qualify, many give up just because they can't make it physically - I am
considering giving up myself for the family and other reasons).
And also giving MS the 1.0 factor. As for MS it is clear that those ops
using the score for qualification and targeting WRTC are the ones driving
any MS operation. No reason to think that somebody gets credited unfairly.
If indeed the organizers are ready to actually listen to the contesting
community then please say so clearly and give everyone chance to speak. A
few open polls would be a great idea.
73
Tonno
ES5TV
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Christian Janssen DL1MGB
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:40 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB
Hi Ranko and others,
regarding your calculations:
The 14 points assisted gets 1000 points.
The 10 points unassisted gets 714 points.
Of course you are always free to discuss the qualification rules and we are
always open to any comment. But with the discussions we followed on
different mailing lists and the feedback we got from several contesters, we
came to the conclusion that there is no reason to make changes to the
already published rules (expcept the two typos we already corrected).
73s Chris DL1MGB
President WRTC2018 Organizing Committee
Am 16.12.2014 15:30, schrieb 4O3A:
> Hi Chris,
>
> would you be so kind to clafiry what exactly mean definition below:
>
> *Assisted scores are compared against Unassisted scores.
>
> If someone make in CQWW as unassisted - 10 points Another guy make in
> same contest as assisted - 14 points
>
> What are final scores for WRTC qualification? Both 1000, of Assisted
> with 14 points gets 1000, and unassisted guy will get 1000 x 10/14?
>
> I am also curious - Does it have any sense to still discuss some
> qualification rules, or rules are final, and comments are useless?
>
> 73
> Ranko
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|