Dave:
I could accept your comments without agreeing with them until you made the
speculative accusation that those of us who oppose the change do so out of
arrogance.
While I was not even thinking about distinguishing between those who build
bigger stations - whether M/S, M/2, or M/M, and those who don't, since you
raised the issue, I would suggest though that those who are willing to
invest time, effort, and capital - emotional or otherwise, in building a
competitive station should not be begrudged by those who do not or cannot -
kind of the opposite of the issue you raise. This is not intended to be to
the determent of anyone, but rather a desire to pursue an interest. Any
endeavor in life has those who will be willing or capable of investing more
into a particular an effort. That this is the case should not be viewed as
a put down to anyone else. Otherwise, then let's limit all contesters to a
tri-bander at 60 feet.
As an aside - your either or of building skills or building the station is
specious. What makes you think that M/S is simply a matter of buying more
stuff?
If the intent is to increase "options," then let's implement a new M/S and
old M/S category, just as you suggest.
How you can read "arrogance" in the comments of those opposing the new M/S,
and mine in particular, escapes me, and I want to make this clear, which is
why I bother responding.
Andrew
W7VJ
No ... it doesn't. SOAB/assisted still only allows one operator.
That points to what I think the majority of people against the new rules
are overlooking. There currently is no viable category for the
situation where a few people want to gather together at someone's shack
to share the effort of a 48 hour contest using a single rig. Everyone
seems to assume that if those folks aren't serious enough to put
together extra rigs, antennas, and switching hardware that they aren't
serious, period. I think that's pretty arrogant. I think it's also
pretty careless to simply assume that there aren't very many hams who
fall into that situation.
I have only a modest station, but as SOAB I can compete reasonably
within my geographic area if I put forth the effort. If I improve as an
operator I could do even better. However, if someone wants to join me
for a combined effort to split the operating time, we don't have a
prayer of being competitive in M./S under the old rules. Even worse, in
my opinion, is that if we want to become more competitive in M/S we have
to totally refocus on hardware issues instead of operator proficiency.
Per my comment above, I'll bet there are a whole lot more people who
would be willing to develop their operating skills versus those who
would be inclined to invest more money in their stations.
I don't think the proposed rule change has anything at all to do with an
"imbalance" of categories. It has to do with the total absence of one
... a true M/S category. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I
think we at least have to give Randy a lot of credit for trying to fill
the gap.
Possibly the better path would be to keep the current M/S category and
add a new one .... where the rule allowed only one rig in the shack to
be powered up within any ten minute period or something similar. If
nothing else, it would offer the ability to see from log submissions
where the bulk of the interest lies.
73,
Dave AB7E
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|