[CQ-Contest] WPX Edict Most Distressing

George Schultz w0ua at aol.com
Fri Nov 20 16:54:33 EST 2020

If you (like I) are a traditional WPX SOAB entrant, this istruly distressing on 2 levels:

1.     The manner in which it was executed (I’d call ittroublingly arbitrary & mishandled)

2.     The decision itself, eliminating the mainstaySOAB category

All this raises a number of questions & deep concerns.

Can ONE person—sitting in a single power-chair—decide for himselfwhat’s “best for the contest” and unilaterally kill a popular category with justa few keystrokes?  With no input from thecommunity—you know, we the participants?  Here’s your answer from AA3B:

“ Thank you allfor your inputs.  I have my convictions on the rule changes and I ownthem.  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 standby them.”

Translation:  “My way or the highway.”

Note that this is alldeclared in the first-person and “ownership” is individually claimed. Apparently,no fresh surveys, no community-input, no committee decision (just one man’s “convictions”).  Also note that the time for “inputs” isusually before a decision is made, not after—too late for inputs, we’re down tofeedback--too late for discussion, we’re told, ONE person has decided for allof us!  I posit here that this is NOT howdecisions—highly impactful decisions-- are made in a “fully transparent manner.”  It looks from here like it’s arbitrary,capricious and perhaps biased toward imposing someone’s personal preferences onthousands of entrants.  And, perhaps anattempt to influence other major events to similar exclusionary ends?

If the method weren’t badenough, the decision itself is terrible, of course.  KU8E provided numbers indicating SOAB is awonderfully popular category, which includes dedicated efforts & top scoresfrom many of the planet’s most dedicated & skilled operators—and, many whoare just in for fun.  Now, why wouldanyone want to kill that?  I see onlyweak excuses about “adjudication,” that, “other contests are doing it” (not themajors & what’s RTTY have to do with it?) Sorry, none of this faux-logic holds water to eliminate thebread-and-butter SOAB category—not even close. And, the 24-hour “overlay”-thing? You’re kidding, right?  

I hope this apparentlyunilateral and surely arbitrary decision—which diminishes this fine event forthousands--can be reconsidered; perhaps as a proposal, solicitation of input(before the fact, not after) from the community and taken-up by a committee ofunbiased, responsible CQ officials.  Inany case, though, this edict is both wrong & wrongly imposed.  And, in a fair & just contest communityit should NOT stand…

Geo  W0UA





More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list