[UK-CONTEST] Jubilee

[Tim-M0BEW]

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

wow I never thought of that!

Tim-M0BEW.

----- Original Message -----
From: "G3RIR" <g3rir at thersgb.net>
To: "Tim-M0BEW" <m0bew at blueyonder.co.uk>; <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Jubilee


> 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
> >
>