[RTTY] JARTS RTTY Coming Soon!

Mon Oct 8 16:49:29 EDT 2012

Let me throw in some additional ways of looking at this topic...

If there are no adjustments made for special circumstances, then why do 
they even bother to hold the Special Olympics?

Next thought... who decided that 48 hours is the best contest length in 
the first place? Why didn't they consider 24 hours instead?

I am not saying there should be an award for everyone who participates, 
but recognizing obvious limitations of the participants within the 
contesting community should be given serious (re)consideration.

Let's consider if there were 12, 24, and 48 hour periods within a 
contest. A big concession is, yes, it is more work for the contest 
sponsor to manage the awards. But for the fellow who must work on 
Saturday, he's automatically relegated to the "I'll get on just to 
improve my skills and give out a few points." There's absolutely no 
chance he can be competitive in this 48-hour event. If there were a 
12-hour classification, the competitor within me says I would give that 
a serious shot, competing with all the other fellows who can't / won't 
devote the full 48 hours.

We're back to the "who and why did 48 hours become the 'standard' in the 
first place?" Does anyone remember when Sweepstakes ran for weeks? This 
type of change is not unprecedented in large contests.

Personally, my contesting is similar to Ed... I'll get on for the 
enjoyment and keeping my skill level up. But I know I would be more 
devoted and competitive if there were shorter "goals" that would give me 
a chance to paper my wall with a certificate. I would have more 
incentive to stay in front of the radio instead of wandering off to 
check Facebook, the weather outside, or simply sipping a cup of coffee 
while watching the TV for a half-hour.

These are thoughts for discussion.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10/8/2012 2:14 PM, Rick wrote:
> "Think about what our contests would be like if the only participants were
> those who thought they had a chance to win!"
>
> Very well said ED.
> This is a point most organizers and avid "to Win" contesters do not even
> think about and they should.
> How many times have you been "brushed off" by some rabid, "going for the
> gold", guy ?? I still remember those experiences when I was a rookie
> contester !!
>
> Yes, we have an ageing group in the Ham community and some of us old guys
> just don't have the stamina to put in 30 - 48 hours.
> The most fun I personally have are the NAQP contests because they are
> do-able for me.
>
> Anyhow, glad you mentioned that point and I hope some more awareness is
> generated from it.
>
> Rick - WU6W
>   
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Muns
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:34 AM
> To: '7L4IOU'
> Cc: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] JARTS RTTY Coming Soon!
>
> I agree that 48-hour contests are a physical and mental challenge that I
> personally haven't mastered.  I've never been able to stay conscious for the
> full two days without breaks.  But this shortcoming is not the only thing
> that lowers my chance of winning.  If a good operator at a bigger and/or
> better-located station participates, then my chances of winning decrease.
> If not, then my chances of winning increase.  These are all things I have no
> control over.
>
> So, I've decided that "the journey is more important (and, satisfying) than
> the destination".  I can control "the journey", that is, whether I
> participate and how hard I try to operate the best I can from whatever
> station I'm at.  If I win at some level, that is wonderful too, but its not
> the main reason I contest.  I contest because I enjoy operating with high
> activity and improving my operating skill.
>
> For example, I operated 9 hours of the 24 allowed for single-ops in the CQP
> (California QSO Party) this past weekend.  There was no way I could be
> competitive, but this didn't keep me from participating as strong as I could
> for the 9 hours I could get on.  I had two huge reasons for not
> participating, but I ignored them.  First, my 20, 40 and 80 meter antennas
> have not been repaired from last winter's damage.  Second, I had work events
> that I could not miss.  But, there were 9 hours I could operate on 10, 15
> and 160 and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
>
> Think about what our contests would be like if the only participants were
> those who thought they had a chance to win!  There would be very few
> stations to work and contesting would die.  Most contest participation
> continues to increase because it is an ideal time to operate.
>
> I hope there is lots of participation in the JARTS WW RTTY Contest because
> that makes it successful and more fun for everyone.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
>   
> Steve, ZC4LI, replied:
>> 48 hour SOAB Category is a bit too much in this day and age, for me
>> anyway.
>> I and no doubt many others like to compete to win and unless you do
>> the full 48 hours then you do not give yourself a chance.
>> If you do not have a chance then there is no point in entering the
>> contest.
>>
>> Maybe you would consider putting in more categories say SOSB,  and 24
>> and 12 hour cats for us oldies who can't whack the 48 anymore.
>
> Hisami, 7L4IOU, wrote:
>> The JARTS WW RTTY is held on Oct. 20-21.
>>
>> We have the great pleasure to invite you to the 21th WW RTTY CONTEST
>> conducted by the Japanese Amateur Radio Teleprinter Society, JARTS.
>>
>> 2012 Rules and 2011 Results are online at http://www.jarts.jp
>>
>> if you have any questions, please email to questions at jarts.jp
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>