[CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE

[Rick Lindquist, WW3DE]

Jim, your posting raises some valid issues. 

I certainly hope that the CQ Contest Committee does not determine that the best approach to head off prospective cheating in the single op category would be to co-opt a technology that enables cheating in the first place. As you note, such "decriminalization" could have broad consequences beyond the immediately obvious. In any case, taking advantage of packet spots is not the only means available to single ops who may be inclined to flout the rules. 

In my opinion, FOIA and democratic principles do not apply to entities such as CQ Communications that sponsor contests. Unlike the ARRL, CQ is not a membership organization (you join the League; you do not subscribe to QST ). CQ's leadership should be free to appoint whomever it wants to its various committees. One's "vote," I suppose, would be to subscribe or not to subscribe to the magazine. 

I'm a bit player in the contesting arena, but I'll be interested to see what others have to say. 

73, Rick, WW3DE 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Neiger" <n6tj at sbcglobal.net> 
To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:41:02 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE 




AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE, and K1EA, K1AR, K1DG, N2AA, N2NC, N2NT, KR2Q, N3ED, K3ZO, KM3T, W3ZZ, N5KO, W5OV, N6AA, N6TR, N6TW, N8BJQ, N9RV, W0YK, W0UN, CT1BOH, DJ6QT, DL6RAI, EA3DU, F6BEE, G3SXW, JE1CKA, OH2BH, OH2KI, OH2MM, PY5EG, S50A, UA9BA, VE3EJ, VA7RR 

from: Jim Neiger N6TJ 

subject: "The winds of change are a blowin' or The day that contesting died" 

1. QUESTION: Will the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE open its closed discussions of the fate of Single Operator categories to the public or will we first learn of them when the rules are changed? 

2. PREMISE: The CQ CONTEST log checkers cannot efficiently or accurately ascertain as to whether anyone is cheating by the use of packet, claiming to be Single Operator, but when really operating Single Operator - Assisted. 

3. WHAT THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING: Given (2), above, eliminate the Single Operator category, and everyone is then Single Operator - Assisted. 


My opinions / comments: 

(1) Needless to say, given (3) above, to be competitive all must then use packet, or skimmers, or...................? 

(2) Can I assume that not everyone desires to use packet or skimmers? 

(3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make all past records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted multiplier totals will soon rival those of the Multi-multi submittals. 

(4) Packet is used and enjoyed by many. From the DX-end, one can always tell when they've just been spotted; the rate really takes off. Great fun. Many opinions have been stated about the pros/cons/desires of using packet. But at the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, packet, skimmers, and the like, is NOT DXing, represents minimal skills, and is more like the proverbial 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Great competition. NOT. 

(5) QUESTION: Who are these guys that are the members of the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE and hold our collective fate in their hands? Hard working, volunteer log checkers, for sure. But does anyone remember voting them into office? Who gave them the power to VOTE on these matters of such great importance to us all? For those who extol the merits of our democratic way of life, no matter how pathetic our elected officials at times may be, we at least had the opportunity to vote them in, or out, of office. 

TO SUMMARIZE: I have been operating CQ contests since 1955. Many. Won a couple, lost a bunch. Needless to say, when I resigned from the CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE in 1978, my power to vote was gone. All I can do now is plea: open up your deliberations and discussions on these matters. Let the all of us know who's minds we need to change. What have you got to hide? Please do not make this the death of my contesting career, as it most certainly will. Thank you. 

s/ Jim Neiger N6TJ 

17 January 2010 
_______________________________________________ 
CQ-Contest mailing list 
CQ-Contest at contesting.com 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest