Hi,
Is it really necessary to use the phrase "such stupidity"? Maybe "oversight"
or "error" or "imperfect" would be a bit nicer?
If I had volunteered to be part of a team to try to write qualification rules,
I can imagine that it would be quite a challenge to come up with a perfect set
of rules on the first try.
73, Rich, N6KT
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 8:28:36 AM PST, Karel Matousek
<ok1cf@atlas.cz> wrote:
Hi,
UA6 it is a completely different world than here in central Europe. I cannot
believe that someone could invent such stupidity and put OK/OM and UA6 into one
group. I agree with Rasta OM3BH.
Karel OK1CF/OK5W
______________________________________________________________
> Od: "Rastislav Hrnko" <om3bh@centrum.sk>
> Komu: k5zd@charter.net, "'Mats Strandberg'" <sm6lrr@gmail.com>,
> "'cq-contest@contesting.com'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Datum: 02.01.2019 14:16
> Předmět: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rules for WRTC...oops
>
Hi guys,
Does anyone have a worse idea to include UA6 region together with OK, OM
etc.... ??? Why not with UA9 ...?
It would never have occurred to me.
73 HNY Rasťo OM3BH
______________________________________________________________
> Od: k5zd@charter.net
> Komu: "'Mats Strandberg'" <sm6lrr@gmail.com>, "'cq-contest@contesting.com'"
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Dátum: 02.01.2019 07:24
> Predmet: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rules for WRTC...oops
>
It is up to the organizers, but in the past, this only meant that all
single band scores were compared to the all band scores. Not that a
single band entry could win and get the full qualifying points unless
their score was higher than the top all band entry.
It is possible in a contest like WPX for a single band entry to have a
higher score than the all band entries. In this case, it makes sense
that the single band entry would get the full qualifying points. But,
in most cases, it will be the all band score that sets the standard.
Regardless of the past, you are correct that the rules as written do
not specify this clearly.
Randy K5ZD
-----------------------------------------From: "Mats Strandberg"
To: cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday January 1 2019 9:30:11AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rules for WRTC...oops
Bill,
Exactly the same struck me...
A station with a decent antenna for any single band, can quite easily
reach
Full Score in 12 contests, while the very skilled SO2R All Band
operator,
quite easily can end up not on full score in some of the contests,
due to
much higher competition, with the result that the Single Band guy can
grab
that TL ticket quite easily.
Or Bill, do we both miss something in the “small text” of the
rules?
73 de RM2D, Mats
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 16:03, Bill kollenbaum via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
> A couple of things popped out at me.
> If I read the rules correctly:
> Single band entries count the same as all band entries...big
problem.
> Station VP5XYZ operates with a smallt station on a band from which
there
> are usually not any single band efforts...160 or 10. He operates
for a
> couple of hours and winds up with 30 or 40 Qs. VP5ABC does AB and
makes
> 7000 Qs but finishes nr 2 for his area. VP5XYZ gets more WRTC
credit than
> the guy who busted butt for 40+ hours at VP5ABC. This could happen
in many
> of the qualifying areas.
> In qualifying zones which are sparsely populated, what happens if
no one
> gets 25% of the top operator's score...no one goes from that
district?
>
> Bill KH7XS/K4XS
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>
/> >
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>
/>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<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
|