Maybe it's just me, but somehow, implying that people who think a 5 day
deadline is too short "lazy" is just a tad insulting. And certainly unnecessary.
Personally, if I were allowed to have an opinion, I'd say that under normal
(not extenuating or special) circumstances, 7 to 10 days is quite reasonable;
anything over 14 is probably too much, and anything less than 5 is
unreasonable. Simply allowing for normal human activities... a chance to take a
break, catch some rest, or deal with other things right after the moment the
contest is over.
However, I've been informed that since I disagree with another policy of the
various CQ contest committees (a deceased equine that's been beaten quite
enough, thank you), and as such decline to submit logs, I'm no longer permitted
to have an opinion on CQ sponsored contests. So it goes.
73, ron w3wn
--------------------
On 07/25/12, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
No Chris, your opinion is absolutely relevant. Apparently the world-wide
education system has been successful in creating the "Everyone's a
winner, here's your trophy for last place." mind set.
The CQ committee already has a provision for those who can't/won't make
the 5-day deadline. What is so difficult with pressing a key to generate
a Cabrillo file, attach it to an email, and send it to the contest
sponsor. This can be done with 1 minute of effort right after you have
decided you are done with the contest. I've sent logs in even before the
contest period was over.
If a contester can't manage that 1 minute effort, they can email an
extension request. Something like "I'm too lazy to get my log in on
time". The only difference in the amount of effort is with the extension
request, they didn't have to push the "create Cabrillo file" key and
attach it.
73 de Bob - K�RC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/25/2012 12:13 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Quote: "I really like this approach: treat different customers differently.
> ... 5 days might be long time for Top Notch Operators, but It's too short
> for casual "having fun" participants."
>
>
> No. Rules are rules and their inherent character (like laws) is that they
> are the same for every participant. If we start deviding, we loose the last
> tiny right to speak about radio-"sport". Who should be the big instance to
> decide who is a "casual participant" having fun only? Below 1k qso there is
> no competetive operating? Business class for the real contesters, rest to be
> neglected. Thanks, understood...
>
> But that is the opinion of a small pistol and therefore of course not too
> relevant.
>
> 73, Chris (DL8MBS)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|