No ... I didn't say that those who oppose the rules changes are
arrogant. I've heard some pretty interesting and passionate arguments
supporting the existing M/S category, and it is apparent that several
folks view it as a real challenge to wring as much out of the current
M/S/ category as possible. In my opinion, that's good for the sport.
What I said was that I thought it was arrogant for people to oppose the
rule changes on the basis that those who might benefit from them aren't
likely to be serious contesters, and that if they were they'd be willing
to invest the time and money to dramatically expand the hardware of
their station. That sentiment has been expressed several times here in
one form or another, usually with some reference to "a bunch of guys
drinking beer". That doesn't sound arrogant to you?
Actually, I didn't even say that you in particular were arrogant
(although I did probably make an overly broad reference to "everyone").
I said that your comment about the new M/1 category being essentially
the same as SOAB(A) pointed out the oversight that many people in
opposition to the new rules seem to be making ... that there currently
is no viable category for two or more serious contesters to participate
and be competitive with only one rig. To be competitive, SOAB requires
a 48 hour commitment from a single person ... M/S does not. Major
difference.
And no, I don't think that setting up a competitive M/S effort is merely
a matter of buying more hardware. But it does include doing exactly
that, when in my opinion it shouldn't and still be called
"multi-operator single-transmitter".
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
And yes, I think we probably can agree that maybe the best solution may
be to simply add the new M/1 category without abandoning the existing
M/S category. If CQWW can add a new Unlimited category that nobody
seems all that excited about, why can't WPX add one that actually fills
a need?
As I said before, I'm appreciative that Randy is willing to try some
changes. Hopefully he can make some sense out of all the feedback.
73,
Dave AB7E
W7VJ wrote:
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|