[CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB

Wed Dec 17 11:44:54 EST 2014

As I remember, I was among the youngest WRTC attendees 3 times in a row, last time the youngest referee. In Boston many would come and say to me: “Hey, you need to compete, you are too young for a referee, now it is your time to compete”. I got really determined to give a serious try for the next one.

But in the very first second after I read the qualifying rules, yes, that Saturday night during CQWW CW, I realized this cannot be achievable. Why? Because of the drastic cuts in number of teams per area (although paradoxically total number of competing teams has been increased), crowding the qualifying events in just two years but keeping the same number of minimum 12 scoring contests (we have also careers, family, one cannot compete every other weekend), the weighting factors for assisted vs non assisted and downgrading M/S efforts (like otherwise would be enough for someone who wants to qualify to just prepare some coffees for his teammates and the ticket is secured).

The qualifying rules, as they are drawn now, are prohibitive and make me also seriously consider quitting, before even starting. The most shocking aspect though is the lack of coherent and punctual answers from the Committee and their reluctance to even take in consideration any reaction from contest community.

They are declaring that next WRTC will focus on young operators. In light of all this, that sounds nothing less than ironic. Or maybe I am already old for this game.

73 Tibi YO9GZU

On Dec 17, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Braco OE1EMS <oe1ems at emssolutions.at> wrote:

> Tonno,
> 
> i agree with you 
> 
> but i dont know if any presure can bring some changes!
> 
> Even on BCC (Bavarain Contest Club) no one more responsible OM´s didn’t make
> any comment on complain about rules!
> 
> However I found as well very funny that WAG is on the list for qualification
> and more funny are those 900 Points (EUHFC and ARRL 800 only)
> And as well 1000 points for WAE sounds pretty much to me! 
> 
> You are not alone who is thinking about not go for qualification points!
> 
> 73s
> Braco
> E77DX
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
> Tonno Vahk
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Dezember 2014 11:37
> An: 'Christian Janssen DL1MGB'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Is this a joke? It can't be true in reality that the organizers meant to
> have assisted and non-assisted in the same qualification category and the
> scores compared to each other!
> 
> So far I thought the rules were clear that:
> 
> *Assisted scores are compared against Unassisted scores
> 
> And not opposite! Meaning that in case the unassisted winner scored higher
> then assisted winner, the assisted winner would not get 1000 points but
> proportionally less.
> 
> But surely the Unassisted scores can't be compared to Assisted and the
> Unassisted winner downgraded from 1000 if the Assisted winner makes a higher
> score.
> 
> They are in completely different categories.
> 
> If what you said below Chris is indeed true and not an interpretation
> mistake then this it totally absurd. 
> 
> And unfortunately what you say about following "feedback" and concluding
> something is also absurd. If indeed you had asked for feedback officially I
> am sure that me as well as many other contesters would have given you clear
> feedback. Now it seemed just a waste of time to lament in some mailing list
> organizers having already shown that they could not care less about the
> opinion of the contesting community by not giving them any chance to comment
> the draft of the qualification rules before actually announcing them final.
> 
> Did you ever ask for any feedback prior to announcing the "final" rules? I
> did not see.
> 
> Naturally I am strongly supporting the numerous requests in the very list
> about reducing the number of qualification events and/or prolonging the time
> from 2 years to 3 (2 years and 12 contests simply puts such a burden on
> entrants that not the best but those having the time and resources will
> qualify, many give up just because they can't make it physically - I am
> considering giving up myself for the family and other reasons).
> 
> And also giving MS the 1.0 factor. As for MS it is clear that those ops
> using the score for qualification and targeting WRTC are the ones driving
> any MS operation. No reason to think that somebody gets credited unfairly.
> 
> If indeed the organizers are ready to actually listen to the contesting
> community then please say so clearly and give everyone chance to speak.  A
> few open polls would be a great idea.
> 
> 73
> Tonno
> ES5TV
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Christian Janssen DL1MGB
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:40 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Need clarification from DL1MGB
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest