[CQ-Contest] WRTC Rules
Robert L. Shohet
kq2m at mags.net
Thu Feb 24 09:27:50 EST 2000
This kind of logic is silly. What is the relevant skill of requiring
operators to manual screw/unscrew coax connectors? Manual Dexterity?
No one needs to be at WRTC to test this. Besides, why stop here? Why
not junk all the FT1000MP (which BTW we ARE allowed to bring) IC 781's,
etc. and use Heathkit HW101's and/or HW16's?
Why not paper log instead of computer log? Sending CW and duping at
high rates at the same time was a REAL skill but why make it MORE
difficult and lower scores further?
Why not test our ability to zero beat stations and use external VFO's or
better still, straight keys'?
Technology SHOULD be used as long as it is available to all. We are not
going to WRTC to participate in a "Nostalgia" contest. If that were
true, then we should be consistent and take an ocean-steamer across the
Atlantic rather than fly and then we should be prepared to trap and make
our own food rather than buy it.
The purpose of a competition is to allow the competitors to UNLEASH
their skill, ability and energy in the pursuit of excellence and
technology allows the opportunity to exhibit MORE skill and excellence
by allowing us to use the energy in more efficient ways. Turning our
back on technology and knowledge only reduces competition to the lowest
common denominator and allows the slower, less energetic and less
motivated to be at a level they otherwise would not have the capacity to
acheive on their own.
K6LA also addressed the relevant safety issues with regard to static
discharges, rf ground loops and LIGHTNING storms at that time of year.
What is the purpose of taking these risks? If a competitor were injured
what skill would that test? The ability of medical personnell to
respond to an emergencey situation? These risks and inconveniences are
UNNECESSARY and offer advantages to NO ONE.
As far as rule changes go, who said that they were "cast in stone"? Why
should they be? Rules are SUPPPOSED to fulfill a valid purpose and be a
living, breathing thing, which means the flexibility to change. An "ALL
or NOTHING" attitude only stifles and strangles what the event was
designed to provide, and reinforces the rigidity of the event. Since no
radio competition I ever knew of rewarded an ironclad operating plan or
a rigid view of propagation (in fact the best scores are ALWAYS as a
result of flexibility and making decisions on "the go") why shouldn't
the rulemakers of such an event be equally flexible? After all
shouldn't their rulemaking style be similar to the skills of the event
that they are testing?
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest