[CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Proposed rule change Summary

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

Now, that's interesting.

I thought that Randy posted advance notice of the change, and asked for good
reasons why it shouldn't be done.  I don't recall him putting it to a vote.

We also don't know what Randy has been told privately from members of this
reflector, nor do we know what comments he's heard from other sources.  

So are you saying that the sentiment now "In other words, since the
"majority" of posters on one email reflector are against change, change
should not even be considered, even if it is improvement, how dare you!" ??

I may well be in the minority here (so what else is new?), but I think that
the new Multi/1 category is ultimately a good thing in both the short and
the long term. 

73

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Shohet
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 6:26 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WPX M/S Proposed rule change Summary

Having read all the posts on the M/S rule change proposed
by K5ZD, two things have become clear.

1) The majority of posters on CQ-Contest are NOT in 
favor of the rule change.  In fact, they are quite vocal
in their opposition to it!  Most have said "Leave M/S alone"
and they have spoken loudly and clearly.

2) I asked K5ZD to please provide any data that supports
the rationale for his proposed rule change.  He avoided any reply 
except to send me the url of his blog.  

I looked at the data from the WPX Survey.

http://www.cqwpx.com/blog/?p=46

Randy only summarized the 1/3 of the responses
that actually had operated in the M/S category.
(I'm not sure why the other 2/3 were left out since some
of these ops might eventually operate the M/S category)

The tabulated results quite clearly showed that a
MAJORITY, 50%+ did **NOT** want a change in M/S!

A significant percentage wanted only a slight change in the
number of band changes or a "10-minute rule" for the 
SECOND transmitter.. 

*NOWHERE* in the data provided did it show a percentage
of people that wanted M/S to be changed to ONE-TRANSMITTER only!.

In fact, the question "Do you think that the M/S category should be 
ONE-TRANSMITTER ONLY, was NEVER asked!  

Randy, without that question being asked, how can you possibly 
think that a consensus exists to fundamentally change 
the M/S category to one-transmitter?

It appears that Randy has proposed to make a major category
change based on NO DATA to support it!  This seems to
be a unilateral decision on his part despite clear opposition.

I am also not sure why Randy would send me the url of a DIFFERENT
Survey question to support his proposal for a major rule change?

Based on:

A) A question that was NOT asked, 
B) Data from the Survey that showed  that a clear majority did 
     NOT want a change in the M/S category rules, and
C) A clear majority of CQ-Contest posters who do NOT
     want the M/S category changed to ONE-transmitter,

>From a reading of the data that we DO have, it is clear to me that this
proposed
rule should be rescinded with the M/S category staying as it is - One RUN
station
PLUS One MULT station

I hope that Randy will look at his own data and respect the clear wishes of
the
contest participants to keep M/S category in it's present form.

If not, it will be because he chose to ignore the wishes of the WPX
contesters
and ignore data that is in opposition to his proposed rule change.  That
would
set a BAD precedent and the decision would be a bad one for the contest.
 
73 & Happy Thanksgiving

Bob KQ2M






_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest