[CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules

[Mats Strandberg]

I fully support Paul's view, summarized by his conclusion that the
unanimous response is poorly thought through.

Assisted is now baked together in one big fluffy cake with Unassisted to
"simplify the rules and to promote the competition by concentrating
operators in only a few categories".  For what purpose is there a need to
simplify rules and concentrate competition into "only a few categories"?
What does the contesting community gain by that decision?

In analogy of the logic of the WRTC 2018 statement, I for sure agree with
Paul that QRP, LP and HP then should be considered equal in the same way
that Assisted and Unassisted is done. Why bother to try to judge if an
entry is reasonable or not. Better assume all are cheating...

So, the wish from the organizers would actually be that all WRTC aspirants
should preferably work only HP and only Assisted, to "simplify rules and
concentrate competition into only a few categories...

In case all qualification has been done using clusters, skimmers and RBN, I
for sure do not see the logic in prohibiting the same in the real
competition. This is double standards on unprecedented level. Let guys play
with toys they got used to.

The WRTC 2018 organizers talk with split tongues and the logic is not
present at all.

Like someone stated, it seems that this move of equalizing Assisted and Non
Assisted is the beginning of the last nail into the coffin for traditional
operating in CQWW also. After WRTC 2018, CQWW CC just "realize" that all
major contesters have now "matured" and accepted the evolution of
contesting by working Assisted.  Leave the old-fashioned guys in the
Classic 24 hour category and let them play with their old toys and remain
conservative.

This looks like a perfectly directed movie, with a given end.

73 de Mats RM2D (SM6LRR)



2014-12-07 21:58 GMT+03:00 Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>:

> On 07/12/2014 15:12, Christian Janssen wrote:
>
>  The current qualification rules are the result of long and intensive
>> discussions and a unanimous decision of the WRTC2018 Organizing Committee.
>> We are most grateful for the discussions in various mailing lists and the
>> useful contributions we have received from them.
>>
>> Q: Why are Assisted, Non-Assisted, Single Band and Single Mode in the
>> same category?
>> A: The main reason is to simplify the rules and to promote the
>> competition by concentrating operators in only few categories.
>>
>
> Why, then, have the rules not been simplified by placing
> QRP, LP and HP in the same category?  It seems to me this
> would serve equally well to concentrate operators in fewer
> categories.
>
>  We do not intend to rate down the skills known from the good old times,
>>
>
> The "good old times" are right now. DL1MGB claims the
> Organising Committee did not intend to "rate down the
> skills", and yet that is precisely, after intensive
> discussions, what they have unanimously agreed to. At
> least no one can accuse them of consistency.
>
>  nor do we plan to include the use of the DX-Cluster in the WRTC2018.
>>
>
> Why not?  If use of the DX-Cluster is the only viable
> option for WRTC qualification, it doesn't make sense
> to exclude this option in WRTC2018.  Again, I detect
> a certain lack of consistency.
>
>  Meanwhile using assisted technologies has become a facet of contesting. A
>> contester these days should also be able to use them wisely.
>>
>
> All relevant technologies assist. What DL1MGB's term
> "assisted" really means is internet-hosted spotting.
> Since there appears to be a general consensus that
> anyone not using the DX-Cluster would be unlikely to
> qualify for WRTC 2018, it follows that all competitors
> will be well-qualified in this facet of contesting.
> Shouldn't we expect them to use it wisely in WRTC2018?
>
>  There have been a number of changes in the past that are common today.
>>
>
> Then why is the most significant change in the past
> that is common today, internet-hosted spotting, not
> permitted in WTC2018?
>
> In summary, I submit that the Committee's unanimous
> response to this issue is poorly thought out, is
> riddled with inconsistencies, and should be reconsidered.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>