I do think we spend way too much time and vitriol debating the equivalent to
the "How many angels on a pin" argument. A lot of what we fight about is stuff
that "we know it when we see it", but can't and never will be objectively
defined. We can define operating methods and scoring systems and the like,
but, defining what is a "hired gun" or what is a "corporate station" is not
objectively possible. I operate from "Rent a Shacks" occasionally, sometimes
.. it is a friends place and I figure I'm just defraying costs .. sometimes a
holiday rental that also includes some equipment and antennas. (Good example
..if I bring the equipment and interfaces, but the antennas already exist, how
would one define that? Sometimes it is just someone who has a good station,
but only does SSB and RTTY contests ..you get the idea.
The people who use RHR are a variety, and what the definite "class" for a given
contest would be is another something open to question. I'll use W7RN as an
example (not to pick on them, they just have enough operational variety for
this argument). W7RN is fully remoteable, but also hosts onsite ops. There
are people (I believe) who buy time there via RHR .. there are also club
members who remote in as their normal way to operate HF. In any kind of
scenario like Steve mentioned, the club member who helped put things together,
who say ...remotes into W7RN to do a contest Single Op, would be a different
category than the guy who bought the time via RHR.
This will get messier and messier as time goes on. Personally, I would have
been happy if it stayed "a boy and his radio" (and a cluster) .. but it's not a
religion. "What station/QTH" for this operation may become just as much a part
of the equation as "How is the prop on 15M today to <fill in the blank" has
been. A few years of that and we'll barely remember any other way.
Thanks/73
Steve KL7SB
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU
Mike Fatchett
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] New Category Suggestion
Kelly,
I was not clear. I was talking in generalities and not about your post
specifically.
I have no problem with vigorous agreement or disagreement as long was we can do
it more civil.
Poor Steve is being drug through the ringer over a misunderstanding.
Once again I understand the intent, frustration, concern shown by the first
post. I can cite examples where the hired gun can gain advantages. I see no
real reason why we should have an owner/operator class.
I think we could/should further detail what a station owner or station helper
would be allowed to do in the case of a hire gun operating the station. If an
antenna fails or an amp blows up, who should be the doing the fixing? Should
the hired gun be allowed to operate on other bands while the repairman fixes
the problem while the owner operator does not get that opportunity?
Where do you draw the line? Do we draw a line. Is it ok for W0BigGun to bring
over 10 friends just in case stuff happens? I don't think that is right. Is
it ok for K3LR to fix things for W0BigGun if something
breaks? Clear as mud.
W0MU
On 9/9/2016 9:37 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Why even bother with a reflector if someone isn’t allowed to vigorously
> disagree with a posting?
>
> You will note there was no ad hominem in my post. I didn’t call it silly and
> I didn’t insult the OP.
>
> What I did do was elucidate a number of scenarios that make the idea
> untenable. Is that so bad?
>
> I would welcome a debate on the issue, rather than a blanket condemnation of
> dissent.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt,
>
>
>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am not slicing or dicing it. I just wish we could discuss things and
>> leave out the derogatory terms, name calling and similar.
>>
>> I understand the original post. Do I think we could ever write rules for
>> it? Nope.
>>
>> We can't enforce the ones we have. It doesn't mean we can't discuss things
>> even if we don't agree with the premise.
>>
>> There is and will never be a fair in Ham Radio Contesting. WRTC is as close
>> as we can get and we have already shown that process has issues with team
>> and site selection.
>>
>> Why even bother with a reflector if every new idea needs to be hurled away
>> with great force just because someone doesn't agree with it?
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>> On 9/9/2016 8:49 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>>> How finely do you slice it, Mike?
>>>
>>> Do you create a category for owners who do their own work vs. hiring K7LXC?
>>> Extra points for being able to service an IC-7851 yourself? Do those who
>>> scrounge deserve special status from those who call up Icom, JK Antennas
>>> and AN Wireless with their Platinum American Express in hand?
>>>
>>> How about a hired gun who also happens to be the owner’s wrench-slinger? If
>>> K7LXC operated a customer’s station, is he a hired gun?
>>>
>>> None of the operators at K3LR, other than K3LR, owns the station, yet the
>>> owner who also operates does. Does that give K3LR a separate category from
>>> W3LPL when Frank isn’t operating?
>>>
>>> What if W0AIH, arguably the elder statesman of station construction, played
>>> somewhere else? Don't K6LA and K1ZM already get a significant advantage
>>> (which I don’t take issue with) at VY2TT and VY2ZM? Should they also be
>>> granted extra status owing to their owning their stations?
>>>
>>> Would the owner of Radio City deserve owner-operator status if he didn’t
>>> lift a finger to build the store’s station but instead instructed his staff
>>> to do it?
>>>
>>> Finally, isn’t it all even more classicism than already exists in
>>> contesting? The folks who can afford to build dream stations in dream
>>> locations already get a huge advantage, and we want to give them more?
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> To quote — possibly misquote — K0HB, this isn’t an idea that should be
>>> tossed aside casually. It should be hurled away with great force!
>>>
>>> 73, kelly, ve4xt,
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:00 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but your opinion about the matter hold not more value than mine.
>>>> We have endless arguments about the same things year in and year out. Why
>>>> is this idea any different?
>>>>
>>>> To you it was silly. Maybe others agree with the OP (original poster) but
>>>> might be afraid to even post. Could you blame them?
>>>>
>>>> Should hired guns be classified in their own group? I didn't find his
>>>> post disrespectful to anyone. He simply was proposing that people that
>>>> build, maintain and own their station be judge similarly.
>>>>
>>>> Hired guns get the luxury of walking into a fully capable station and have
>>>> to have done a last minute repair, put up a last minute antenna and they
>>>> might be better rested than the station owner who came home to something
>>>> broken right before the contest.
>>>>
>>>> Should the station owner of a station using a hired gun be allowed to do
>>>> any work on the station if something were to break or malfunction? Why
>>>> should the hire gun get a built in repairman when the station
>>>> owner/operator is not afforded the same luxury? Hired guns as someone else
>>>> has mention can spend all their time working on operating while owner
>>>> operators have to spend time building and maintaining. Those are choices
>>>> we make freely.
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem talking about other ways to score or compare scores?
>>>> We have them constantly about CQ WW and trying to make it appear more fair
>>>> for people that do not live in propagation blessed areas.
>>>>
>>>> We can make the rules as simple or complex as we like as these are our
>>>> events.
>>>>
>>>> Do we really need to use the words silly, troll, etc. If you want to
>>>> comment on a post is it that difficult to do so with out insulting people?
>>>> Would people say these things to a stranger in person that you might meet
>>>> at Dayton? Most probably would not. Hiding behind our computer screens
>>>> does not give us the right to be jerks.
>>>>
>>>> W0MU
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/8/2016 11:49 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> I saw it differently. It seemed to me that NN4X was being quite
>>>>> disrespectful toward skilled operators, who by simple virtue of not being
>>>>> able to afford a competent station of their own, should be discriminated
>>>>> against if they get the opportunity to compete from a better station.
>>>>> His suggestion would also open up an endless and contentious argument of
>>>>> what exactly qualifies for such a category, as at least a few replies
>>>>> here have already identified.
>>>>>
>>>>> A silly suggestion isn't courage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/8/2016 6:58 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>>>>> I understand the point that NN4X was making. Do people need to be
>>>>>> arseholes when they don't necessarily agree?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought the purpose of this reflector was to discuss and debate ideas,
>>>>>> concepts, etc. I didn't realize that I had to agree with a particular
>>>>>> mantra to be a member of the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This list has devolved into name calling and many are quite
>>>>>> disrespectful of others opinions and comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess this is what happens when people become old farts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These posts just show that hams are just like everyone else. The
>>>>>> disrespect shown toward others in the real world is about the same as in
>>>>>> this reflector. I used to think Ham Radio people were better people,
>>>>>> would never cheat, treated others as they would like to be treated. No
>>>>>> longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a particular platform that members of this list must conform to
>>>>>> in order to be accepted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least NN4X has the courage to make some suggestions. Most simply
>>>>>> continue to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The value of this list continues to fade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W0MU
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
|