CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] CQWW Survey - One Soab category !

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Survey - One Soab category !
From: IK1HJS - GMAIL <ik1hjs@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:05:00 +0100
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Answering to Jim (K4PQL):
With my maximum respect :sorry but no. It is absolutely not very clear that there is no consensus.
What you are reading on this reflector is just the top of an iceberg.
How do you know what contesters think ? You just see what some of answering contesters are publishing on this reflector: nothing to do with what contesters think. For example I think that on this reflector most "one soab category" contesters are not writing. By my side, the only nearestanswer to true is the Wpx survey that Randy made a few years ago and before (http://www.cqwpx.com/blog/?p=92) . The trend was from 35 (first survey) to 47,35% (second survey) of answering contesters that wants one category for soab (that was for wpx not cqww).
And that is only a portion  of participant in contests.
I don't know what will be the criterium of decision that Committee will have to decide (it's up to them of course), but I think that contesters opinion is just one of a lot of issues that have to be kept in account. I will say my opinion but I will not pretend to know results before publishing of the survey.
Just one category for soab ! That's the way.

73 de Carlo IK1HJS



Il 19/03/2013 23.46, Jim Jordan, K4QPL ha scritto:
This thread has been going on for weeks now. The comments have been good, bad and ugly. They have been thoughtful and sarcastic, polite and rude, positive and negative. However, the one thing that is very clear is that there is no consensus, and even more clearly, no mandate, to change the rules.
Is whatever perceived benefit in merging the assisted and non-assisted 
classes worth the divisiveness, the hard feelings, and the very likely 
decrease in participation?
Has this issue become so large that it can only be resolved as a 
"win-lose" decision?
Can we not get out of our generation gaps, our fear of the occasional 
cheater, the innovation vs. tradition arguments, etc.?
Are non-scientific surveys indicative of true feelings, or even 
accurate indicators of preferences?
Is a 51-49%, or even a 75-25% "win" (either way) of any real value to 
the contesting and the larger ham radio community where camaraderie, 
respect for others and honor have long been the principles we believe 
in? Is "The Old Man" not turning in his grave?
Is making such a radical change a necessity for the survival of 
contesting as we know it?
Regardless of personal preferences, I hope that I speak for the 
majority of contesters who will agree that we need to promptly resolve 
this issue and bring this discussion and the resulting divisiveness to 
an end before further damage results.
Personally, I don't want to hear the results from this "survey" 
regardless of its accuracy or lack thereof. Using it to back a 
"position" will just bring more bickering and divisiveness. Much 
preferable would be a simple statement NOW from the contest organizers 
that they have listened, surveyed, considered the matter and have come 
to the conclusion that notwithstanding any technical benefits that 
might result from change, the idea of merging assisted and 
non-assisted classes has been deferred indefinitely.
This thread can then be closed, hopefully without either crowing or 
sour grapes posts from either group. Maybe then we can save a few 
electrons, avoid "reflector overload" (resulting in frequent use of 
the "delete" button) and hear from members who have positive 
contributions to this great hobby.
73,

Jim, K4QPL


_______________________________________________
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>