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

Fri Nov 20 14:31:09 EST 2020

The poll was not scientific, but there was sufficient response that it could be considered representative.

https://cqww.com/blog/2015-cq-ww-survey-results-part-1/

https://cqww.com/blog/2015-cq-ww-survey-results-part-2/

Part 2 has the most relevant data for this discussion.  

Bear in mind that the survey was 5 years ago and opinions may have changed.

K5ZD

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com at contesting.com> On Behalf Of AB1J via CQ-Contest
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 1:44 PM
To: rjairam at gmail.com; cosson-dimitri at bbox.fr
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW

How was the survey conducted?  Is it representative of the contest community? Self-selected surveys are seldom accurate.

In addition, it was taken five years ago.  Times change.

Even carefully conducted  polls can be wrong.

73,
Ken, AB1J

-----Original Message-----
From: rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com>
To: dimitri <cosson-dimitri at bbox.fr>
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2020 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW

If the vast majority support the changes, why does the survey data say otherwise?

73
Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:38 AM dimitri <cosson-dimitri at bbox.fr> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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