[CQ-Contest] CQWW Survey - One Soab category !

[IK1HJS - GMAIL]

Answering to Jim (K4PQL):
With my maximum respect :sorry but  no. It is absolutely not very clear 
that there is no consensus.
What you are reading on this reflector is just the top of an iceberg.
How do you know what contesters think ? You just see what some of 
answering contesters are publishing on this reflector: nothing to do 
with what contesters think. For example I think that on this reflector 
most "one soab category" contesters are not writing.
By my side,  the only nearestanswer to true  is the Wpx survey that 
Randy made a few years ago and before (http://www.cqwpx.com/blog/?p=92) 
. The trend was  from 35 (first survey)  to 47,35% (second survey) of 
answering contesters that wants one category for soab (that was for wpx 
not cqww).
And that is only a portion  of participant in contests.
I don't know what will be the criterium of decision  that Committee will 
have to decide (it's up to them of course), but I think that contesters 
opinion is just one of a lot of  issues that have to be kept in account.
I will say my opinion but I will not pretend to know results before 
publishing of the survey.

Just one category for soab ! That's the way.

73 de Carlo IK1HJS



Il 19/03/2013 23.46, Jim Jordan, K4QPL ha scritto:
> This thread has been going on for weeks now. The comments have been 
> good, bad and ugly. They have been thoughtful and sarcastic, polite 
> and rude, positive and negative. However, the one thing that is very 
> clear is that there is no consensus, and even more clearly, no 
> mandate, to change the rules.
>
> Is whatever perceived benefit in merging the assisted and non-assisted 
> classes worth the divisiveness, the hard feelings, and the very likely 
> decrease in participation?
>
> Has this issue become so large that it can only be resolved as a 
> "win-lose" decision?
>
> Can we not get out of our generation gaps, our fear of the occasional 
> cheater, the innovation vs. tradition arguments, etc.?
>
> Are non-scientific surveys indicative of true feelings, or even 
> accurate indicators of preferences?
>
> Is a 51-49%, or even a 75-25% "win" (either way) of any real value to 
> the contesting and the larger ham radio community where camaraderie, 
> respect for others and honor have long been the principles we believe 
> in? Is "The Old Man" not turning in his grave?
>
> Is making such a radical change a necessity for the survival of 
> contesting as we know it?
>
> Regardless of personal preferences, I hope that I speak for the 
> majority of contesters who will agree that we need to promptly resolve 
> this issue and bring this discussion and the resulting divisiveness to 
> an end before further damage results.
>
> Personally, I don't want to hear the results from this "survey" 
> regardless of its accuracy or lack thereof. Using it to back a 
> "position" will just bring more bickering and divisiveness. Much 
> preferable would be a simple statement NOW from the contest organizers 
> that they have listened, surveyed, considered the matter and have come 
> to the conclusion that notwithstanding any technical benefits that 
> might result from change, the idea of merging assisted and 
> non-assisted classes has been deferred indefinitely.
>
> This thread can then be closed, hopefully without either crowing or 
> sour grapes posts from either group. Maybe then we can save a few 
> electrons, avoid "reflector overload" (resulting in frequent use of 
> the "delete" button) and hear from members who have positive 
> contributions to this great hobby.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim, K4QPL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest