[CQ-Contest] the "new" M/S for WPX

[Mike N0HI]

No, I don't see this changing participation -- and that is good.  You are
correct, a m/m or m/2 station can still knock down and interlock for a
m/s.  I'm sure they will.  I also believe at least a few big-time m/s will
move up to m/2.  In fact, I can guarantee it.

And I would like to see where in that snip I mentioned casual and serious
guys.  I mentioned:

a. The op who cannot afford or doesn't have the space for a second tx,
filters, antennas, etc.  (I'm sure a lot of these guys are present)
b. The local "community" multi-op trying to set the hook(K1TTT explained
his situation on this list a few weeks ago in m/m, but there are many more
in m/s)
c. M/s guys sick of getting beat by guys who do have the second tx (this
is probably the first category, too)

In the past, maybe you are correct; maybe not having the second tx and
entering m/s put a, b, and/or c in the "casual" category, even if our ops
were very serious in the operation.  My point in all of this, Doug, is
that now they are a little closer to the serious guys.  Taking away that
extra transmitter, even if it means interlocking a few of them, makes the
situation a whole lot more competitive for the "garage multi-ops."  I'm
sure the big interlocked stations will still rule the upper-end, but at
the end of the day, the scores are going to be a little closer.

Again, you're correct.  I'm only talking about making things more
competitive for the guys you just labelled as "casual" who are sure real
serious about being "casual."

--
Mike DeChristopher, N0HI
http://www.n0hi.net
telnet://cluster.n0hi.net




> N0HI said:
> [snip]
> It is also a wonderful category for people who cannot afford or do not
> have the space for a second transmitter, filters, antennas, and other
> associated hardware.  It is also a wonderful category for people who want
> to host a few local operators and "set the contesting hook."  It is also a
> wonderful category for anyone sick of entering m/s and getting knocked out
> by guys running stepped down m/2 or m/m stations with [at least] one
> fully-functioning second position.
> [end snip]
>
> Mike,
>
> In your comments (above), you are talking about two completely different
> activities
> here: (a) casual guys and (b) serious guys.
>
> For the former (what I'll call "casual") these guys could have always done
> this...even under
> the still current WPX M/S rules.  Nothing will change.  You can "set the
> hook" in any
> (multi) category.
>
> For the latter (what I call "serious"), now you are "gripping" about not
> be able to compete;
> that is an entirely different story.  Not having the wherewithall to
> launch a competitive
> station should (IMHO) have nothing to do with a category definition.
>
> If you think that forcing a M/S to have only one signal on the air at any
> given time is going
> to somehow prevent a current "high end" M/S from simply interlocking their
> (multiple) radios
> so there really is only one signal on the air at a time, well, all I can
> say is that I do not
> think that view represents reality.  Battling the interlock (octopus) is
> actually a lot of fun,
> even though it can also cause of a lot of internal strife at the station.
> :-)
>
> Under the proposed WPX M/S rule, I still see no legal barrier to setting
> up (as some say) a
> full M/M and simply interlocking all of the rigs so that there is just
> "one signal at a time."
> Doing the same for a current M/2 station to now be M/S capable is even
> easier.
> Working with a partner or two and getting the "rhythm" down can be a thing
> of beauty and
> a great source of pride.  It sure builds camaraderie.
>
> If the WPX rule doesn't change, nobody is going to drop out.  If the WPX
> M/S rule does
> change, there may be some (minor?) category migration.  In the end, I
> predict that none
> of this will matter in terms of participation.
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>