[CQ-Contest] CQ WW -- It ain't broke

[Patrick Barkey]

This message will win me no friends, but somebody's gotta say it, so I
will.  Please take this as constructive criticism.

I am a big believer in measuring people's true opinion and belief
based upon their actions, not their words.  The actions say it all.

Upwards of ten or fifteen thousand people just got on and operated the
hell out of one of the finest contests of the year, the CQ WW.  While
.0001% of the contesting population (who seem to occupy 50% of the
traffic on this reflector) want:

[1] all rules to be strictly enforced, so that half or more entrants
are disqualified;

[2] RST's replaced with "meaningful" exchanges;

[3] separate categories for every possible antenna configuration,
power level, and operating ability;

[4]  all those who use cut numbers, multiple radios, and M/M's who
don't log same-country QSO's to be put to death,

Apparently the other 99.999% thought it was an excellent contest and
had a lot of fun.  That's why they got on, in numbers so large that
huge scores were made possible.

To those who want to implement rules 1-4 or any variations thereof, I
say:  get your own contest.

The recent exchanges on this reflector are, unfortunately, proof that
the character of this whole medium is 90-95 percent internet
dominated, with a tiny trickle of actual ham radio content.

What is going on?  Where are the stories about operating, propagation,
wierd openings, or exciting moments?  We just got done operating a
contest that saw records broken by anywhere from 10 to 30 percent, and
this is the CQ CONTEST reflector, and yet we spend our time afterwards
in another endless discussion about cut numbers?

   -- Pat
      N9RV

Disclaimer:  Yes, I am on the CQ WW committee, but these statements
reflect my opinion alone.


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com