[CQ-Contest] [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
Martin Monsalvo, LU5DX
lu5dx at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 23 10:31:41 EDT 2012
Steve!
Amazing great point! I don't know why, but many are responding about this in private emails.
However, as I've been pushing for the elimination of the SO/SO(A) separation for the past 10 years. I must say that even worse is the Assisted/Unassisted situation.
I won't say I hate the guy from whose head the idea of the Assisted/Unassisted separation emerged in the first place. But he simply created a way of cheating over the others, based on his poor reasoning.
This poor reasoning says that if you use a tool that presents information on your screen you are no longer a true single op. Freaking twisted way of thinking.
The same could have been said when contest logging software was born: Those not using a pen and paper to do the logging and "duping" and taking advantage of Super Check Partial, Computer CW sending, real time auto duping are no longer real single ops! They are just computer assisted single ops.
The use of the information presented by a dx or telnet cluster represents in fact a whole lot les "assistance" than computer logging itself.
Furthermore, this separation did not exist when friends used to warn friends over VHF/UHF, or even the phone, and just a few were unfairly using that advantage. When it became massive and available to almos everyone. The whole fiasco regarding "assistance" starts. Because this technology usage is hardly detected.
Jeepers Creepers! (My Gosh).
Unbelievable lack of vision of yesteryears.
With all the respect and admiration I feel for contest organizers. I believe changes need to be more dynamic and adjust to reality faster.
Martin, LU5DX
________________________________
From: Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com>
To: wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
I'm sorry to have to say this, but the effect of making the LP and HP weighting
factors the same would indeed result in more stations claiming to operate LP.
But how many of those new converts to LP will really be running LP ?
The law of unintended consequences at work.
73,
Steve, N2IC
On 08/22/2012 10:33 PM, Marvin Bloomquist wrote:
> I really don't have a problem with the present weighting factor for LP but if
> you think about it, a penalty for low power makes that category less attractive
> and hence less competitive. If the weighting was the same as high power and LP
> was seen as less competitive it is logical to assume some of those seriously
> competing for a WRTC spot as HP would change to LP thus making it more
> competitive and ultimately things would even out. Something to think about anyway.
> Marv N5AW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Chris Plumblee <mailto:chris.plumblee at gmail.com>
> *To:* VE5ZX <mailto:ve5zx at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> ;
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org <mailto:wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:23 PM
> *Subject:* [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
>
> Syl,
>
> Lost in the discussion, I think, is the difficult balancing act that the
> wrtc team has to do to balance out the very real geographic inequalities
> with the category choices that we all make when we operate. Residents of
> areas with dense populations of serious contesters might as easily say that
> the high score in ve5 receiving the same wrtc qualification score as the
> high score in ve3 is not fair. Depending on the relative seriousness of both
> entries it might not be entirely fair, but it's the fairest of all
> possibilities. I've interspersed some additional comments below for those
> who are inclined to read on.
>
> The reality of our hobby is that the best measure of who is the best
> operator is who can score best in the single op categories, and the category
> with the most serious entries and the most competition on a regional,
> national, and international basis is almost universally single op, high
> power. The scoring weight for single op low power was adjusted upward this
> year in an attempt to be more equitable, as Dan pointed out.
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, VE5ZX wrote:
>
> The post was to CQ-Contest first because I was unaware of this reflector
> >Many argue that operating in the actual WRTC event requires skills
> that closer align to HP operations as the sought-after WRTC operators
> can run more frequently than typical LP entrants
> Gosh comments like that are annoying and naïve! It assumes that a LP
> operator has never worked HP in a contest perhaps at big station. This
> logic is one of the reasons that contesting is losing its interest for
> me. Too much speculation and too many decisions behind closed doors!!
>
>
> Given no evidence to the contrary (ie scores from a big station in some
> category or another) that seems a very logical conclusion to draw. the
> scoring algorithm was published before it was adopted and was open for
> comment at that time.
>
> > It would seem that you could better keep pace with your competition
> by using LP than if you ventured into HP when using a smaller station,
> even with the 10% score adjustment.
> Gosh this sort of reasoning evades me. Enter a class that you are not in
> just so you can get the 10% that the WRTC rules take away from you.
> Nonsense! And from the off reflector comments I have been getting from
> other LP operators they rightfully feel completely discounted by the
> WRTC rules too.
>
>
> I think what Dan was saying is that, in your specific situation, you would
> be better served by entering low power and taking the 10% hit to your
> maximum score, rather than competing with the larger stations using high
> power. Not all low power contested feel slighted, as n4ydu states below.
>
> >Thirdly, I wonder aloud why this topic arises now, two years after the
> selection criteria were issued.
> I guess because many people are afraid of standing up to the contesting
> establishment. And I just became aware of rules when I found out via the
> grape vine that I was 2nd ranked in my zone. So I looked at the way the
> ranks were determined. What an insight and what a mess!
> Oh Well.
> Syl – VE5ZX
>
>
> 73,
> Chris wf3c
>
> *From:* K1to at aol.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:29 PM
> *To:* wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> *Cc:* cq-contest at contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
> (This reply was interrupted by a lightning strike here in FL!)
> Syl et al,
> First, some historical perspective: For WRTC-2010, the factor for SOLP
> was 0.7. We sought to increase the incentive for operating LP in
> WRTC-2014 qualifying events, and, after much behind-the-scenes
> discussion, arrived at 0.9. Many argue that operating in the actual WRTC
> event requires skills that closer align to HP operations as the
> sought-after WRTC operators can run more frequently than typical LP
> entrants.
> Secondly, I disagree that it hurts the urban op. It would seem that you
> could better keep pace with your competition by using LP than if you
> ventured into HP when using a smaller station, even with the 10% score
> adjustment.
> Thirdly, I wonder aloud why this topic arises now, two years after the
> selection criteria were issued.
> Lastly, I see that you also posted this to CQ-Contest, thus the copy to
> that list as well.
> GL & 73, Dan, K1TO
> WRTC-2014 Team Selection Director
> In a message dated 8/22/2012 2:22:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> ve5zx at hotmail.com writes:
>
> The WRTC 2014 Team Selection criteria are given here
> http://www.wrtc2014.org/qualifying/team-selection/
>
> Could some please explain why the SO LP weighting factor (0.9) is
> less than
> the SO HP (1.0) weighting factor?
>
> It penalizes those of us that live in a urban environment and need
> to run LP
> in order to keep peace with the neighbors :)
>
> tnx - Syl - VE5Zx
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Plumblee
> 407.494.5155
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
_______________________________________________
wrtc2014 mailing list
wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list