[CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying

[David Siddall]

Here's a thought: the WRTC2018 organizers might voluntarily follow
procedures similar to those implemented by K5ZD for changes to the CQWW
rules, that is, publish the rules as drafted by the committee with a short
period to take comments, and then adopt either "as-is" or with appropriate
changes.  This doesn't change who makes the decisions, but being exposed to
a variety of viewpoints and thoughts more often than not improves the
result.

73, Dave K3ZJ



On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:23 PM, 4O3A <4o3a at t-com.me> wrote:

> Hi to all,
>
> I hope that some comments will be considered and Team selection criteria
> will be changed a bit?
>
> For me and all contesters whom I discussed with, obvious problem is having
> to short selection period.
>
> Ranking 12 contests , and making selection criteria in the way that mostly
> SOAB are to be done is to much. Organizer counts seasons 2015/2016, and not
> counting 2017? None of us can't see reasonable explanation for such
> decision. We all suffered for qualifying for WRTC 2014 in Boston,
> dedicating ourself to make 12 good scores, and we had 3 years for it. It
> was really hard - ask anyone from EU or USA who did it. Now we have only
> two years for same number of contests?
>
> I have station capable to win and to assure place in qualification. I am
> enough dedicated to spend unreasonable amount of time for hobby, but
> honestly, it becomes to be so demanding and overmuch.
>
> My proposal should be to:
> -Extend qualification period on 2017
> -Calculate eight best scores
>
> It will give more chance to more contesters with average stations, and
> will demand not quantity of scores - will demand higher scores and quality.
> Simple.
>
> I know that this will be probably ignored, but is is common opinion of
> many contesters and previous WRTC participants.
>
> Also, as organizer has full right to make selection criteria whatever he
> likes, it is better to invite teams by whatever criteria you like, instead
> having bad selection criteria.
>
> Now I am curious to see rules. Hope our German friends will be more open
> for rules with more rooms for technical improvements. Hope all will agree
> that this aspect of contesting is very important as well as operating
> skills?
>
> 73
> Ranko
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>