[CQ-Contest] New Category Suggestion

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I am not slicing or dicing it.  I just wish we could discuss things and 
leave out the derogatory terms, name calling and similar.

I understand the original post.  Do I think we could ever write rules 
for it?  Nope.

We can't enforce the ones we have.  It doesn't mean we can't discuss 
things even if we don't agree with the premise.

There is and will never be a fair in Ham Radio Contesting.  WRTC is as 
close as we can get and we have already shown that process has issues 
with team and site selection.

Why even bother with a reflector if every new idea needs to be hurled 
away with great force just because someone doesn't agree with it?

W0MU

On 9/9/2016 8:49 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> How finely do you slice it, Mike?
>
> Do you create a category for owners who do their own work vs. hiring K7LXC? Extra points for being able to service an IC-7851 yourself? Do those who scrounge deserve special status from those who call up Icom, JK Antennas and AN Wireless with their Platinum American Express in hand?
>
> How about a hired gun who also happens to be the owner’s wrench-slinger? If K7LXC operated a customer’s station, is he a hired gun?
>
> None of the operators at K3LR, other than K3LR, owns the station, yet the owner who also operates does. Does that give K3LR a separate category from W3LPL when Frank isn’t operating?
>
> What if W0AIH, arguably the elder statesman of station construction, played somewhere else? Don't K6LA and K1ZM already get a significant advantage (which I don’t take issue with) at VY2TT and VY2ZM? Should they also be granted extra status owing to their owning their stations?
>
> Would the owner of Radio City deserve owner-operator status if he didn’t lift a finger to build the store’s station but instead instructed his staff to do it?
>
> Finally, isn’t it all even more classicism than already exists in contesting? The folks who can afford to build dream stations in dream locations already get a huge advantage, and we want to give them more? Seriously?
>
> To quote — possibly misquote — K0HB, this isn’t an idea that should be tossed aside casually. It should be hurled away with great force!
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt,
>
>
>> On Sep 9, 2016, at 9:00 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe, but your opinion about the matter hold not more value than mine.  We have endless arguments about the same things year in and year out.  Why is this idea any different?
>>
>> To you it was silly.  Maybe others agree with the OP (original poster) but might be afraid to even post.  Could you blame them?
>>
>> Should hired guns be classified in their own group?  I didn't find his post disrespectful to  anyone.  He simply was proposing that people that build, maintain and own their station be judge similarly.
>>
>> Hired guns get the luxury of walking into a fully capable station and have to have done a last minute repair, put up a last minute antenna and they might be better rested than the station owner who came home to something broken right before the contest.
>>
>> Should the station owner of a station using a hired gun be allowed to do any work on the station if something were to break or malfunction? Why should the hire gun get a built in repairman when the station owner/operator is not afforded the same luxury? Hired guns as someone else has mention can spend all their time working on operating while owner operators have to spend time building and maintaining.  Those are choices we make freely.
>>
>> What is the problem talking about other ways to score or compare scores?  We have them constantly about CQ WW and trying to make it appear more fair for people that do not live in propagation blessed areas.
>>
>> We can make the rules as simple or complex as we like as these are our events.
>>
>> Do we really need to use the words silly, troll, etc.  If you want to comment on a post is it that difficult to do so with out insulting people?  Would people say these things to a stranger in person that you might meet at Dayton?  Most probably would not. Hiding behind our computer screens does not give us the right to be jerks.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/8/2016 11:49 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>> I saw it differently.  It seemed to me that NN4X was being quite disrespectful toward skilled operators, who by simple virtue of not being able to afford a competent station of their own, should be discriminated against if they get the opportunity to compete from a better station.  His suggestion would also open up an endless and contentious argument of what exactly qualifies for such a category, as at least a few replies here have already identified.
>>>
>>> A silly suggestion isn't courage.
>>>
>>> Dave   AB7E
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/8/2016 6:58 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>>> I understand the point that NN4X was making.  Do people need to be arseholes when they don't necessarily agree?
>>>>
>>>> I thought the purpose of this reflector was to discuss and debate ideas, concepts, etc.  I didn't realize that I had to agree with a particular mantra to be a member of the list.
>>>>
>>>> This list has devolved into name calling and many are quite disrespectful of others opinions and comments.
>>>>
>>>> I guess this is what happens when people become old farts?
>>>>
>>>> These posts just show that hams are just like everyone else. The disrespect shown toward others in the real world is about the same as in this reflector.  I used to think Ham Radio people were better people, would never cheat, treated others as they would like to be treated.  No longer.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a particular platform that members of this list must conform to in order to be accepted?
>>>>
>>>> At least NN4X has the courage to make some suggestions.  Most simply continue to keep their heads firmly planted in the sand.
>>>>
>>>> The value of this list continues to fade.
>>>>
>>>> W0MU
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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