[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Wed Jun 25 11:03:30 EDT 2014

This post is the perfect definition of hypocrisy.

Mike W0MU

On 6/24/2014 6:43 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
> A friend of mine, no stranger to the top 10, made this comment to me 
> in an off line email.......
> "....the enormous arrogance of the tiny minority that can afford to 
> operate from "the other side" and feel as thought the whole contest is 
> only about THEM.  Apparently the rest of us are just cannon fodder, 
> filler for their logs."
> I agree with him.
> And, oh by the way Barry, yes, some of us still "search".
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Adams
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:15 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules
> Did anyone tally the feedback made _after_ WPX about stations that 
> felt they were more/less disadvantaged because of the ID requirement, 
> or stations that that found the contest more/less fun because of the 
> rule change?
> To be honest, I don't remember much post-contest feedback one way or 
> the other; I just remember a lot of fuss when the change was announced.
> While I think that a strong argument could be made that ID frequency 
> is a strategy choice that could be of concern between competitive 
> stations in a close race, I also think that a stronger argument could 
> be made that having running stations ID more frequently might enhance 
> the enjoyment of little guns or casual operators who fill the logs of 
> the competitive stations.
> Personally, I don't think that the proposed rule change is the end of 
> the world.  But I'd play in the contest and have fun regardless of 
> whether the change was made.    Others' mileage may vary.

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list