[UK-CONTEST] Lee's Posting

[g3ory at lineone.net]

Lee's posting struck a chord with me. It was the bit when he wrote:


>But the bigger question is about communication.  Ian mentions below 
about 
>his "vote."  Changes to the CC and Sprint have been published 
on the RSGBCC 
>website, and then a discussion here follows 
*afterwards*.  This seems to 
>happen every year. The rule or calendar 
changes are offered without 
>explanation (so far), which gives rise to 
a number of opposing viewpoints 
>and potential explanations being 
given. We presume that the appropriate care 
>and consideration of 
entrants of all different types across the UK has been 
>given. Some 
notes to accompany the changes explaining the changes, 
>preferably 
with some data to back it up rather than relying on general 

>impressions would help.  Or if these notes are forthcoming, their 
timing 
>could be much better!  There are examples where despite 
committee 
>deliberation, public comment has caused amended rules to be 
changed again - 
>so perhaps more consultation or publication of a 
draft programme would be 
>worthwhile in future?

One possible way of 
having the discussion prior to finalising the changes, would be for the 
RSGB CC to publish a 'Green Paper' (check out Wikipedia if you are 
unfamiliar with Government Green Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper#Government_white_papers


This would outline the broad thrust of the CC thinking and invite 
feedback from the contesting community prior to the whole thing being 
set in stone.  In that way, as Lee said:

>Entrants need to feel that 
they're listened to, that their "vote" has 
>counted, and feel that 
they understand why changes were made. Even if some 
>changes may not 
personally be to their liking, if they've been given the 
>facts and 
the knowledge that their viewpoint has been listened to (or was 
>even 
asked for), more (but not all) may then agree with it.

A broader 
feedback would be achieved and hopefully lead to less 'post-decision 
flack' for the Contest Committee.  I chair a different RSGB Committee 
and I get to meet all the regular participants face to face each month. 
This enables me to keep track of the way folk are thinking and the 
general feelings about the way forward. The Contest Committee (apart 
from a one hour session at the Convention) generally do not have this 
opportunity and I believe it would be advantageous for them to develop 
some procedure which would act as a better substitute than the present 
arrangements.

Bob G3ORY





>----Original Message----
>From: 
g0mtn1 at gmail.com
>Date: 03/12/2011 16:52 
>To: <uk-contest at contesting.
com>
>Subj: [UK-CONTEST] Sprints (and 80mCC)
>
>
>Agreed. With mixed 
mode, the possibility to make more QSOs in a single event 
>would be 
increased, but the spread of contesters calling / searching on the 

>particular mode that you are on yourself would be reduced.  When 
calling CQ, 
>perhaps two thirds of your audience would be listening on 
a different mode 
>compared with the present rules. I think this would 
flatten the QSO rate 
>over the whole of the event, rather than having 
a sprint trickling down to a 
>stroll. The final QSO tally could be 
higher, but certainly not double or 
>triple, as 2x or 3x mixed mode 
operating is not preferred for many people 
>(considering results from 
RSGB and other international events.)   Some 
>people don't like the 
sprints because they see them as being too complex 
>already - so many 
of the changes suggested wouldn't help.  Computer logging 
>also 
becomes too complex for some people when 2 (or especially 3) modes are 

>run concurrently.  These ideas have the potential to give experienced 
mixed 
>mode entrants an extra buzz and some more QSOs, but adds the 
risk of putting 
>even more people off.
>
>But the bigger question is 
about communication.  Ian mentions below about 
>his "vote."  Changes 
to the CC and Sprint have been published on the RSGBCC 
>website, and 
then a discussion here follows *afterwards*.  This seems to 
>happen 
every year. The rule or calendar changes are offered without 

>explanation (so far), which gives rise to a number of opposing 
viewpoints 
>and potential explanations being given. We presume that 
the appropriate care 
>and consideration of entrants of all different 
types across the UK has been 
>given. Some notes to accompany the 
changes explaining the changes, 
>preferably with some data to back it 
up rather than relying on general 
>impressions would help.  Or if 
these notes are forthcoming, their timing 
>could be much better!  
There are examples where despite committee 
>deliberation, public 
comment has caused amended rules to be changed again - 
>so perhaps 
more consultation or publication of a draft programme would be 

>worthwhile in future?
>
>I would guess that:
>
>1) The increase in 
80mCC support from GM from the re-instatement of the 
>January sessions 
(intended to flatten the playing field to make up for the 
>mid-summer 
propagation which doesn't favour GM) was not large. As there had 
>been 
a number of complaints about the volume of RSGB events in January, on 

>balance it was decided to withdraw the January sessions again.
>
>2) 
The Sprint series has not been such a success compared with the 80mCC. 
It 
>was decided to reduce the number of sessions to maintain a better 
balance in 
>the overall calendar, i.e. not have so many events that 
are not overly 
>popular, and potentially to focus more activity on the 
fewer remaining 
>sessions.
>
>But who knows exactly how many entrants 
would prefer a January 80mCC or not. 
>I don't think anyone truly 
knows.  Have the expected changes to January 
>propagation as mentioned 
here have been considered? And as for the Sprints, 
>I'm literally just 
guessing.  How did we manage to change the flawed revised 
>160m rules, 
but as yet not the Sprint format, or find a better way to 
>include PSK 
in the 80mCCs?  There have surely been enough comments. Was a 

>critical mass of common sense not reached?
>
>Whilst the RSGB itself 
is it pains to improve communication, and use all 
>manner of existing 
and emerging web technologies to facilitate this and 
>better 
understand and give service to their customer, I have yet to see the 

>same intent emerge from the contest committee.  Whilst emails to the 

>committee can be sent at any time, it's rare that any feedback is seen 
to 
>have made a difference. More contest sponsors now run periodic 
online 
>surveys so that they *know* what a *substantial* proportion of 
their 
>entrants want or enjoy, and are in a better position to make 
changes.  From 
>what I see the committee's changes are based on 
limited data - but it 
>doesn't have to be this way.  The contest forum 
at the RSGB Convention is 
>usually a very busy affair - but from the 
entrants perspective the whole 
>year shouldn't revolve around just 30 
minutes or so of face to face debate 
>with a minority of entrants. The 
interest in the forum shows how the other 
>communication methods just 
don't seem to work. Maybe the calendar changes 
>were explained away at 
the contest forum - I was presenting elsewhere so I 
>missed it.  So a 
summary of what went on for the general public would be 
>useful.
>

>Entrants need to feel that they're listened to, that their "vote" has 

>counted, and feel that they understand why changes were made. Even if 
some 
>changes may not personally be to their liking, if they've been 
given the 
>facts and the knowledge that their viewpoint has been 
listened to (or was 
>even asked for), more (but not all) may then 
agree with it.
>
>73,
>
>Lee G0MTN (now back to house painting)
>

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Ian Pritchard" <g3wvg at btinternet.
com>
>To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Saturday, December 03, 
2011 3:25 PM
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Sprints
>
>
>> I dont think 
that making the event more "complex" will acheive greater 
>> 
paticipation. For some reason some folk find the Sprint format not to 

>> their taste, even so
>> from the last couple of contests, I get the 
impression that support is
>> gradually increasing. If the aim is to 
make the event more of a "sprint" 
>> rather than a qso party we either 
need more stations or a shorter contest.
>> I think I've banged on 
about this in every "soapbox" but my vote (...if 
>> there was one!) 
would be for staying with the same format but shortening 
>> the 
contest to 60minutes.
>>
>> 73 Ian G3WVG (or G0AAA in SSB)
>>
>>
>>
>> 
_______________________________________________
>> 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>