[UK-CONTEST] Jubilee

[G3RIR]

Perhaps the Jubilee contest was meant to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee?

Neil, G3RIR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim-M0BEW" <m0bew at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Jubilee


> What happened to Jubilee?
> Was it not very popular. Could it not have been reworked into a yearly
> contest.
> I think there was mention of it running again in an US
> publication, I can't remember which now, and it's still listed on the
common
> internet contest calendars for 2003.
> What happened to it?
> There were comments that there wasn't enough room in the calendar for both
> Beru and Jubilee.
> I'm kinda disappointed to see it gone before it even had chance to
develop.
> A few
> tweaks in the scoring and rules would have made it a good contest compared
> to others currently in the UK calendar imo.
> What were the reasons for it's going.
> Did Jubilee and Beru go head to head... and Beru win?
>
> Tim-M0BEW.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Lawley" <g4buo at compuserve.com>
> To: "UK Reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:17 PM
> Subject: RE: [UK-CONTEST] Contest Calendar or Not
>
>
> > >HFCC have lost the plot and bottled out. Chris G3SJJ (past HFCC member
> and
> > >chair)
> >
> > I can't let this sort of thing go unchallenged. Sadly, Chris ended his
> > time as HFCC chair having lost the confidence and support of every
> > one of his committee members, and that obviously rankles.
> >
> > He refers to discussion, negative at times, on this reflector and I
> > certainly
> > regret there isn't more discussion of hardware, tactics, advice, rather
> > than
> > endless debates about rules. I have had several comments about the
> > content on here and a number (including some HFCC members) have
> > un-subscribed. I haven't heard a single positive suggestion on this
> > reflector about how we might capture the new generation of M3s and
> > turn them into contesters.
> >
> > There's obviously a debate about the LF cumulatives but let me remind
> > you of some comments about these contests that were on this very
reflector
> > just under two years ago, reproduced below. In small part, the
> cancellation
> >
> > of the cumulatives was a response to these comments, which just
> illustrates
> >
> > how dangerous it can be to take note of comments on an Internet forum.
> >
> > "activity was dismal by any standards, and this contest must surely be
> > past its sell by date"
> > "In the contest I found I ran out of contacts very quickly, the second
> > hour was really slow"
> > "Tough going again"
> > "An enjoyable event once again but activity definitely dropped off
towards
> > the end"
> > "As for the LF Cumulatives, they are fun as they are, but it would
> > certainly
> > be interesting to try a sprint type event instead.. however I fear that
> > entry
> > numbers/activity may drop if this change does happen"
> > "Still considerably quieter in the second hour though"
> > "Yet again tough going"
> > "Note to HFCC, please switch off this contest's life support machine"
> > "Only 16 in the next hour! where did they all go"
> > "I do wonder if they could be reduced to 90 minutes thereby removing
> > the frustrating last 30 minutes"
> > "...the contest is still a bit too long, erm about 2 hours too  long
> > actually"
> > "in the end the biggest signal wins in this contest, which is why I
don't
> > like it; there's simply no finesse, just wham bang thank you ma'am"
> > "Trash the event and save the ionosphere"
> > "best ever first half hour in a LF Cumulative Contest. Sadly I only just
> > managed to get the same number of QSOs again in the remaining one
> > and a half hours"
> > "Having listened to some of the LF cumulatives - they are a
> > total waste of time for everyone.    Ditch the whole lot"
> > "Looking at the RSGB HF contest calendar, a lot of the contests seem
> > to be 'outdated', especially those that encourage inter-G working,
> > without the requirement to work 'multipliers'"
> >
> > You can see that it's very hard to reach a concensus. We made some
> > fairly radical changes two years ago, and are now getting a lot of grief
> > over the cumulatives. Chris calls for changes in a number of areas
> > and it's likely some of those changes would call forward more negative
> > comment on the reflector. Chris has been pushing a multimode field
> > day for a while but this does not have widespread support, and I
recently
> > heard from the DARC rep Manfred, DK2OY who confirmed that they also
> > do not support a combined CW/SSB field day.
> >
> > One change this year is the introduction of Cabrillo, which is becoming
> the
> > world wide de facto standard. We were pleased to see suggestions on
> > this forum that HFCC should accept Cabrillo but somehow Chris has
> > managed to caricature the change as
> >
> > "... a tightening up of the log entry procedure with all most compulsary
> > use of SD"
> >
> > I was the one who re-wrote rule 9 once we made the decision to go for
> > Cabrillo. G3XTT and G3UFY put in a lot of work to prepare the ground
> > for this. I don't see how the new rule can be seen as tightening up, but
> > instead it standardises and it does not make SD compulsory at all.
> > We continue to endorse SD since it supports all RSGB contests, and it
> > is easy for newcomers to learn. I agree about the drawbacks, and many
> > contesters will choose instead to use CT, TR, NA, Writelog, N1MM as
> > appropriate - all of which support Cabrillo.
> >
> > Just a quick plea while we're on Cabrillo. We still want to know what
> > equipment and antennas you use, as it can help to add interest to the
> > writeup. Please include this with any other soapbox comments in the
> header.
> >
> > I was on the HFCC when SSB AFS started, and we have discussed the
> > anomaly of 5 per. team for CW and 3 per. team for phone several times.
> > If the CW leg were reduced to 3, maybe a couple more clubs would
> > come on, but already there are plenty of entries with less than five. On
> > the other hand, some clubs would no longer have to work hard to get
> > numbers 4 and 5 into the team, with the result that the overall entry
> > level would reduce. We also discussed raising the phone level to 5
> > per. team but felt this would put intolerable pressure on the limited
> > part of the band we use, especially in view of the deliberate QRM
> > from SSTVers. Maybe this analysis is wrong - what do others think?
> >
> > Finally Chris tries to throw some mud by talking about "sinister"
> > aspects of resistance to rule change. There is value in having
> > stability in rules, year after year, unless there is good reason
> > to change. So although he and Clive have suggested starting the
> > topband contests an hour earlier, we would also want to hear from
> > others who are not past winners, and we would want to consider
> > whether this really made sense in propagation terms, and was
> > likely to result in higher G entry. What would certainly happen in
> > the first year, or two, would be that some overseas entrants would
> > be unaware of the rule change and would miss the first hour,
> > despite our best efforts at publicity. That's not in itself a reason
> > for resisting a change if it is justified on other grounds, but if there
> > was no strong case for change, then best to leave as it is.
> >
> > 73, Dave G4BUO (HFCC member and past chair, who would never
> > slag them off in public)
> >
> > A postscript having read Andy G4KNO's comments about the
> > cumulatives. There is no conspiracy, it is cock-up. The diary seems
> > to be done by someone at HQ, without knowledge of the Radcom
> > Editor or anyone on HFCC. I suspect there were cumulative dates in
> > the 2002 diary as well, with whoever wrote them just following on from
> > the previous year. We were all unaware of this until he raised it on
> > the reflector, and it was not the subject of a split decision on the
> > committee.
> > _______________________________________________
> > UK-Contest mailing list
> > UK-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>