[CQ-Contest] WRTC Selection Criteria

Doug Smith w9wi at w9wi.com
Tue Feb 27 09:55:01 EST 2007

On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 21:59 -0800, Rick Tavan N6XI wrote:
> It is true that someone will always be (or feel) disadvantaged. But there
> are ways to reduce the actual disadvantage substantially. 

Within a geographically large country (USA, Russia, Canada, Australia,
China, others?) would there be a point in using a semi-democratic or
jury kind of process?  Something like this:

- WRTC organizers assign some number of "seats" to each of these

- WRTC organizers select a "jury" or "electoral college" in each of
these countries.  This would consist of contesters who've placed well
(i.e., Top 10) in the country's major domestic contest, the ARRL DX, or
the CQ WW.  So there might be 60 "jurors" in each large country, 10 for
each mode of each of the 3 major contests.  "Jurors" would not
necessarily be interested in or able to participate in WRTC

- Anyone in these countries able & interested in participating in WRTC
registers their interest, say, through a website.

- The list of those who've expressed interest in participating is sent
to *all* countries' juries.  Each juror would get three votes for
participants from their own country (and would not be allowed to vote
for themselves) and one vote for participants from each other country.

The idea being...  that an American ham cannot be expected to know that
UA0XYZ* is a better operator than UA6ZZ* but is handicapped by poor
propagation in UA0X.  But a serious Russian contester probably *does*
know.  At the same time, the WRTC is an *international* contest, so when
selecting Russian participants we need to take into account the opinions
of amateurs in other countries.  Of course, likewise for the selection
of Americans, and Canadians, and operators in other geographically large

* hypothetical callsigns
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN  EM66

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list