[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

The casual op clicked the spot, logged the contact and moved 
on..................

Mike W0MU

On 6/24/2014 12:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> It's odd how some people try to turn every debate into an issue of 
> instant gratification.  It's the same tactic used by others who 
> generalize about politics, or generations, or gender, or religion, or 
> whatever.  And yes, I'm aware of the irony inherent in my own 
> generalization(s) here.
>
> It seems to me that the CQWW contest sponsors might simply be trying 
> to make the event more attractive to casual participants in order to 
> generate more activity for EVERYONE, including those of us (myself 
> included) who prefer to run a frequency 98% of the time.
>
> I like analogies.  I tend to avoid events like concerts and movies 
> where I have to wait in line an excessive amount of time because the 
> venue wasn't designed to meet the demand.  I virtually boycott stores 
> that understaff the checkout lane because they weren't willing to 
> treat my wait time as a service issue.   I used to spend a lot of 
> money to periodically upgrade my computer with faster CPU/RAM/GPU so 
> that I wouldn't have to wait so long to run calculation-intensive 
> applications like EXCEL, VOACAP, or video games (mine is now fast 
> enough for anything I care to run).
>
> The only people who don't get irritated by excessive and needless wait 
> times in this life are those who have absolutely nothing better to do, 
> or are already dead.  (oops, another generalization)
>
> It's boring to sit on a frequency listening to a string of QSOs being 
> made by other contesters who got the callsign from a spot or by DX'ers 
> who aren't really in the contest and couldn't care less how long it 
> takes to snag a rare one.  It's frustrating having to wait for the 
> other guy to simply let everyone know who he is. It's irritating 
> knowing that the other guy is soliciting a contact from you while 
> purposely impacting your rate in order to enhance his.  If it's 
> boring, frustrating, irritating it isn't going to appeal to a casual 
> contester ... those folks that the rest of us keep trying to entice 
> into the game by telling them that it's fun and exciting. The great 
> majority of contest participants are S&P'ers, and the greater the run 
> rate the greater the percentage of them.  A run rate of 100 QSOs/hr 
> means that 99% of the participants are S&P'ers! It seems almost 
> elitist to think that the rules should cater to the guy who wants to 
> just sit there and run at the expense of majority who call him.
>
> And how we went from reducing wait time to everyone getting a trophy 
> is totally beyond me.  See non sequitur ... 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29>
>
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
> On 6/24/2014 7:47 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> The aim is gain two way contacts?    I thought it was to work as many 
>> people as possible and as many mults.  Pileup control is done by 
>> giving callsigns.  So in an effort to placate the I NEED IT NOW 
>> society a rules change has been made to remove a viable strategy from 
>> a run station so that S&P stations can get a call or verify a call 
>> faster.
>>
>> The next rule change we need is that everyone gets a shiny trophy and 
>> we have no winners and losers..................
>>
>>
>> Mike W0MU
>>
>> On 6/23/2014 10:25 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> AF6O wrote:
>>> >Once you try to force a competitor to adopt a strategy to boost his 
>>> competitors score it ceases to be a contest.
>>>
>>> With the aim of the contest being to gain as much TWO-WAY-contacts, 
>>> the other half of a qso seems to be such an essential part(ner) of 
>>> the action that the decision does not seem to be unwise. Oh, and it 
>>> is simply fair to take care of that point. But YMMV
>>> Chris DL8MBS
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest