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

[Jim Jordan]

Carlo,

First of all, you've busted my call. Must have been using skimmer. HI

My point is that it doesn't matter if you really do have a survey that is 
accurate down to two decimal points of a percent. I have entered contests in 
both categories. I like to have a choice and there is obviously a 
substantial number who feel the same. The percentage is irrelevant.

Does it harm you to have a separate class of single-operators who choose not 
to use assistance?

If you are going to always use assistance, then you can disregard the 
non-assisted contestants. Does that harm you? It would seem you would have 
better competition since you would know that you are winning on a level 
playing field.

Let's be inclusive and show tolerance for others, whether they are in the 
majority or a minority. A truly good nation, society or organization is one 
which works for the good of all, promotes diversity and makes room for QRP 
among 5KW rock crushers.

73,

Jim, K4QPL


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "IK1HJS - GMAIL" <ik1hjs at gmail.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:05 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Survey - One Soab category !


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