[CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW

Fri Nov 20 02:44:28 EST 2020

Hi Bud and CC,

Well said.
Given the fact that almost only dissatisfied people express themselves/stirs up the dust (that's how humans work), we can deduce that the VAST majority of contesters are not against these rule changes for the WPX.

Thanks very much for the work/time done for all of us

73 de Dimitri F4DSK

Le 20 nov. 2020 à 03:33, à 03:33, Bud Trench <aa3b.bud at gmail.com> a écrit:
>Thank you all for your inputs.  I have my convictions on the rule
>changes and I own them.  I have provided the rationale in a fully
>transparent manner.  I believe the revised rule are in the long term
>best interest of WPX and stand by them.
>
>Lastly, the sentiments provided below are FAR from universal.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bud Trench, AA3B
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hal Offutt <hal at japancorporateresearch.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:45 PM
>To: Richard Smith <n6kt1 at sbcglobal.net>; cq-contest at contesting.com; Bud
>Trench <aa3b.bud at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW
>
>Rich,
>
>I agree 100% with your conclusion but I think you are being a little 
>hard on Bud.  Bud is one of the good guys.  He's a devoted contester, a
>
>great op and a radio friend to many of us.  Rather than wanting to play
>
>around with the rules for his own excitement and intrigue, I think it 
>more likely that he is being pressured by individuals involved in the 
>WPX management to do something that he probably doesn't really support.
> 
>At least I hope that's the case.  But it's a black box, and therein
>lies 
>the problem:  no transparency, no consultation with fellow competitors 
>and sudden unilateral surprises.
>
>It has been made abundantly clear that this decision is unwelcome to a 
>very large number of serious contesters.  Even those who prefer
>assisted 
>operating have no interest in preventing their their fellow contesters 
>from competing in the way they prefer.
>
>The real question now is whether the WPX leadership - whoever it is - 
>has the courage to admit their mistake and reverse this divisive 
>decision.  And think about a better process for rule making  in the
>future.
>
>We'll find out soon.
>
>73, Hal W1NN
>
>
>On 11/20/2020 7:42 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>   Hi Bud,
>>
>> It's too bad that you don't seem to have respect for operators who
>compete the contest for which you are now director.
>>
>> It seems that you intend to change the rules of the WPX Contest based
>on your own desires to play with the contest rules for your own
>excitement and intrigue. I pulled a couple of sentences from your
>email:
>>
>> Bud wrote: "I am particularly excited
>> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and
>scores) in
>> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are
>available
>> to all competitors.  ....  The possibilities are intriguing."
>>
>> A lot of serious contesters have put huge effort into WPX Contest
>operations and are rightly proud of their accomplishments. Does
>removing a category also result in the removal of the score records for
>which they strived?  Will the SOAB World Records and the other records
>now be discarded, and the huge efforts to achieve them now go
>unheralded?  Would that show respect for the Contesters who achieved
>those scores?
>>
>> I'm wondering what other categories will be dropped in the future, if
>the idea intrigues you?  Will Multi-Two and Multi-Multi be combined
>next year?  Will QRP be combined with Low Power?  Will SO2R be combined
>with Multi-Single?
>>
>> Sometimes I like to think about Contesting in relation to other
>sports. I think of Contesting as Radiosport. In that vein, I think
>about Olympic Sports. Would the Olympic Committee combine the 100m run
>with the 100m hurdles?  Would they put the Javelin and Shotput together
>as one event?
>>
>> I would seriously ask you to rescind the rules changes that you have
>posted, and ask for inputs from the competitors who participate in the
>WPX Contest, before making changes.
>>
>> 73, Rich, N6KT,  PJ4K,  HC8A, etc.
>>
>>      On Monday, November 16, 2020, 05:47:05 PM PST, Bud Trench
><aa3b.bud at gmail.com> wrote:
>>   
>>   The rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW are now posted at the CQ WW WPX
>Website <
>> https://www.cqwpx.com/rules.htm >.
>>
>>   
>>
>> The creation of the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category was
>triggered by
>> the significant reductions in Multi-operator entries in 2020 as a
>result of
>> COVID-19.  Further, it is fully anticipated that COVID-19 will impact
>the
>> heritage multi-op participants again in 2021.  I view 2021 as a test
>case
>> for the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category, from which we will
>make
>> adjustments based on lessons learned.
>>
>>   
>>
>> The reasons for allowing QSO alerting systems in all Single Op
>Categories
>> (except the Classic Overlay) have been provided.  I am particularly
>excited
>> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and
>scores) in
>> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are
>available
>> to all competitors.  How will the top Single Ops from previous years
>adjust
>> their operating strategies given that all competitors can leverage
>increased
>> access to multipliers and high valued QSOs resulting from QSO
>alerting
>> systems?  The possibilities are intriguing.
>>
>>   
>>
>> I anticipated that some participants would prefer to have the option
>to
>> compete without using QSO alerting system, so the Single Op Classic
>Overlay
>> was continued after its inaugural authorization in the 2020 WPX
>contests.
>>
>>   
>>
>> The Single Op Classic Overlay category, which was first introduced in
>WPX in
>> 2020, was shortened from 36 hours to 24 hours to be consistent with
>the
>> Classic Overlay category definition used in CQ WW DX.  The Single Op
>> Classic Overlay continues to support separate scoring and awards in
>the High
>> Power and Low Power categories.
>>
>>   
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Bud AA3B
>>
>>   
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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