[CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB

Wed Dec 17 05:10:14 EST 2014

Mat,

thanks to you and others for being open and fair, trying to convince 
Cris and his team to modify rules to be at least acceptable. Not only 
Ass/ vs Unass, but all five rules weaknesses I noticed in my previous email.

With due respect (again hat down for taking such effort as organizing of 
WRTC is) they have to understand that impact of their decision is 
enormous on all contest community and they should be MUCH more sensitive 
and careful. It is not just taking new game in a house.

Just one colorful detail - I asked at least 50 active contesters - and 
NOBODY agreed with existing rules. Just 3-4 of them had sometning called 
a different opinion on one of my five objections.
If we accept principle "we all have the same rules", we could agree with 
some rules basis, even if we personalty do not like it. But objection I 
addressed to Chris are essential,  and should be really considered and 
changed.

What disappoints me is formally polite response from Chris, but no even 
single comment or answer on any of questions? I am not stupid and I 
clearly red his answer - take it or leave it. So, I won't make more 
comments - will enjoy in some other nice aspects of our hobby.

73
Ranko

On 12/17/2014 5:32 AM, Mats Strandberg wrote:
> Chris said:
>
> Of course you are always free to discuss the qualification rules and we are
> always open to any comment. But with the discussions we followed on
> different mailing lists and the feedback we got from several contesters, we
> came to the conclusion that there is no reason to make changes to the
> already published rules (expcept the two typos we already corrected).
>
> 73s Chris DL1MGB
> President WRTC2018 Organizing Committee
>
>
>
> It seems from Chris' statement that he and his team has carefully evaluated
> the debate on "different mailing lists" and listened to feom "several"
> contesters, and that there is no doubt that the contest community is in
> favour of double standards. I doubt that statement, sorry. The decision to
> value Assisted and Unassisted with same weight is not logical.
>
> First of all, many of the qualification contests alrady allow clusters and
> RBN (WAE, RDXC, All Asian to mention some). In those contests, if selected
> by the WRTC qualifying stations, everyone will allready work Assisted. If
> you are a contester that feel that Assisted is your cup of tea, then the
> bulk of your qualification can already be done assisted that way.
>
> Secondly, if Germans allow Assisted in qualification, then there is beyond
> all sense and doubt, not logical that it is prohibited in the WRTC itself.
> Inconsistency will rule.
>
> Chris, I would like you to crawl out of the box, and not hide the face from
> reality.  Show us the fact and figures, not the biased opinions, that the
> contesting community is in favour of these double standards - to allow
> Assisted in qualification but to run a completely different game in the
> WRTC event itself.  Make a survey between previous WRTC participants in at
> least 2010 and 2014, with NEUTRAL questions, asking for their view of this
> whole issue.
>
> I am following many contest reflectors in the world, in different
> langauges, and for sure I have not been able to make the same conclusion
> like you, that there is overwhelming support for your non-logical desicion
> to equalize assisted with unassisted.
>
> Please note that I am not against assisted. I just want and different
> weight between unassisted and assisted. The more logical from my experience
> is to have a 0,8 factor for Assisted and a 1,0 factor for unassisted. For
> contests where there is only assisted allowed, there is nothing to discuss.
> Just bite in the sour apple and work assisted, as the rules themselves have
> already defined one class.
>
> And, last bot not least, where are all the Top Contesters with opinions
> related to this subject. A few courageous top notch contesters have spoken
> up to protect our hobby from "developing" into something way different from
> what WRTC once was. Where are you other guys?
>
> 73 de Mats RM2D (SM6LRR)
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-12-16 22:39 GMT+03:00 Christian Janssen DL1MGB <dl1mgb at wrtc2018.de>:
>> Hi Ranko and others,
>>
>> regarding your calculations:
>>
>> The 14 points assisted gets 1000 points.
>> The 10 points unassisted gets 714 points.
>>
>> Of course you are always free to discuss the qualification rules and we
>> are always open to any comment. But with the discussions we followed on
>> different mailing lists and the feedback we got from several contesters, we
>> came to the conclusion that there is no reason to make changes to the
>> already published rules (expcept the two typos we already corrected).
>>
>> 73s Chris DL1MGB
>> President WRTC2018 Organizing Committee
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 16.12.2014 15:30, schrieb 4O3A:
>>
>>   Hi Chris,
>>> would you be so kind to clafiry what exactly mean definition below:
>>>
>>> *Assisted scores are compared against Unassisted scores.
>>>
>>> If someone make in CQWW as unassisted - 10 points
>>> Another guy make in same contest as assisted - 14 points
>>>
>>> What are final scores for WRTC qualification? Both 1000, of Assisted
>>> with 14 points gets 1000, and unassisted guy will get 1000 x 10/14?
>>>
>>> I am also curious - Does it have any sense to still discuss some
>>> qualification rules, or rules are final, and comments are useless?
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Ranko
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4794 / Virus Database: 4235/8748 - Release Date: 12/16/14
>
>