[CQ-Contest] WHAT'S THE BIG RUSH?

Sat Jul 27 19:54:17 EDT 2002

I could not agree with my friend, Jim, more. In fact here is an excerpt from
reply sent directly to Trey: "Hi Trey; your plan, of course, is flawless.
BUT why do we want or need it? The old system has worked perfectly for many
years. Why do we need instant
gratification? Your argument by the time results are published we forgot
what we operated in is, at best, ludicrous. I believe, down to my toes, the
wait for the results promotes interest rather than reduce interest. I go
back to the days of paper logs"...blah blah blah......"You are making and
suggesting changes for the sake of making changes and to overturn a
perfectly working system  for those
motivations is absurd."......blah blah blah....
Trey is not suggesting making the system better he is making it faster, for
reasons I still don't understand, let alone agree with. He has done
marvelous work getting the Cabrillo system up and running and should receive
kudos' from all of us for that improvement. Getting as many humans out of
the system as possible was a good thing.

Sometimes slowing down and smelling the roses aint such a bad thing.

MAL               N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Ron Notarius WN3VAW" <wn3vaw at fyi.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 07:27
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WHAT'S THE BIG RUSH?

> I guess I agree with Ron:
>
> Even if we can maybe hasten the time to the final results, What's the Big
> Rush?  Its worked so well for so many years, why do we now think it's
> broken?
>
> Just because many things in our lives CAN and DO go faster, does
everything
> have to?
>
> For many years, the speed limit was 55 MPH.  Then they cranked it back up
to
> 65, and in some places even 70.  Now, if you're not doing at least 80 on
the
> 91 Freeway, hey buddy, get out of the way.  Does that make our lives
> necessarily "better"?
>
> I recall when I was thrilled with my first computer, humming along at a
nice
> 16 MHz.  Now I'm wondering if my new 1.3 GHz notebook is fast enough?
Give
> me a break, please..........
>
> Everything today is about speed, speed, speed.  Even when driving in Italy
> or Germany, do I take a relaxed tour @ 100 km/hour so I might actually SEE
> some of the beautiful countryside?  Nah, I've got to try and COMPETE with
> the locals, and crank it up to 200 km/hr (at least).  Is my quality of
life
> better by doing so?  I think not.  It's just dumb, dumb, dumb.
>
> Now we're led to believe, we can't live without INSTANTANEOUS
GRATIFICATION
> on our contest victory?
>
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  But it's very thoughtful of The Kid (as
> Trey is known around this household) to worry that we old guys may not be
> around long enough for the final results.
>
> The meaningfulness of the answer, for me, far exceeds the quest for
> expediency, in this case.
>
> Vy 73
>
> Jim Neiger
> N6TJ
>
>
>
> >
> > Considering the outcry last year when (under the dubious excuse of
safety
> of
> > the mail) CQ Magazine forced all of us to enter only by electronic
means,
> to
> > now propose to "force" contest entrants to rush in their logs and then
> > "force" the contest committee to rush compilation in another 2 weeks
> strikes
> > me as being too hasty.
> >
> > Are we all so impatient that reducing the turn-around time between
contest
> &
> > results from 6-8 months for the ARRL, and 8-10 months for CQ (just to
pick
> > on two) to under 2 months isn't enough, but we're going to try to
> force-feed
> > it to 6 or even 4 weeks?
> >
> > Remember, we're not dealing with a "closed" environment like the WRTC
> > competitions, where you have a relative small number of stations (50 or
> > less) competing for 24 hours.  Compiling those results in a few hours is
a
> > piece of cake.  We're talking about 48 hour contests that literally
> involve
> > thousands, if not tens of thousands, of amateurs -- many of whom never
> have
> > or will send in logs, which always leave question marks about "uniques"
> and
> > "busted calls" and other potential problems to sort out.
> >
> > Further, you must remember that in much of the world outside of North
> > America and Europe, Internet access is not as accessible nor as cheap as
> it
> > is here.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that there are many
> > active contesters who have a computer in the shack, yet prefer to mail
> their
> > results in via a disk for whatever reasons.
> >
> > I think we should be more concerned with using the proposed changes in a
> > positive way to encourage more potential contesters.  I think if we rise
> the
> > bar too high, we make the goal too difficult, it will do the exact
> opposite
> > by discouraging potential contesters and some of the active and less
> active
> > ones out there.
> >
> > I also would question the ability to compile scores, even with
automation,
> > in a day or two.  Pending data to prove that one way or another, that
> > strikes me as being more than a bit optimistic.  Can someone on one of
the
> > major contest committees comment on whether or not automation makes one
or
> > two days practical?
> >
> > I am not saying that Trey's proposed 15 day deadline is a bad idea.  But
I
> > don't think we're quite ready for it yet.  One thing at a time.
> >
> > 73, ron wn3vaw
> >
> > "What's wrong with being an angry prophet denouncing the hypocrisies of
> our
> > time?"  --  Howard Beale
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Ferdinand W2CS" <W2CS at bellsouth.net>
> > To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] making lemonade (was: ARRL report on line
scores
> > decision)
> > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:08:42 -0400
> >
> > > In short, if we give the committee a month past deadline to assemble
and
> > > post to the web the results (or is a month not enough now, guys?
> > > Tell me if
> > > I'm wrong), and we can have the final results two months after the
> contest
> > > instead of six to eight months, isn't that good enough?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No, it's not good enough.
> >
> > I say let's try the proposal for a season.  It will force the remaining
> > entrants to use or find electronic means.  It will force us all to be a
> tad
> > more prompt with the submissions.  With the level of automation we now
> have,
> > 15 days for submission and 15 days for tallying what should be something
> > that can be done in 1 or 2 days sounds about right to me.  It leaves
most
> of
> > that last 2 weeks open for unanticipated problems.
> >
> > You don't reach a goal by setting it low and hope to improve on it
later.
> > When's later, a few more years?  Rather, set an extremely difficult goal
> and
> > then surprise yourself when you achieve it.
> >
> > I think this is doable with only level-1 whining about it.
> >
> > Gary W2CS
> >
> > --__--__--
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>