Hi Dimitri:
The VAST majority of contesters don't read CQ-Contest! :-)
73,
Mark, KD4D
> On 11/20/2020 2:44 AM dimitri <cosson-dimitri@bbox.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bud and CC,
>
> Well said.
> Given the fact that almost only dissatisfied people express themselves/stirs
> up the dust (that's how humans work), we can deduce that the VAST majority of
> contesters are not against these rule changes for the WPX.
>
>
> Thanks very much for the work/time done for all of us
>
> 73 de Dimitri F4DSK
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> Le 20 nov. 2020 à 03:33, à 03:33, Bud Trench <aa3b.bud@gmail.com> a écrit:
> >Thank you all for your inputs. I have my convictions on the rule
> >changes and I own them. I have provided the rationale in a fully
> >transparent manner. I believe the revised rule are in the long term
> >best interest of WPX and stand by them.
> >
> >Lastly, the sentiments provided below are FAR from universal.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Bud Trench, AA3B
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Hal Offutt <hal@japancorporateresearch.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:45 PM
> >To: Richard Smith <n6kt1@sbcglobal.net>; cq-contest@contesting.com; Bud
> >Trench <aa3b.bud@gmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW
> >
> >Rich,
> >
> >I agree 100% with your conclusion but I think you are being a little
> >hard on Bud. Bud is one of the good guys. He's a devoted contester, a
> >
> >great op and a radio friend to many of us. Rather than wanting to play
> >
> >around with the rules for his own excitement and intrigue, I think it
> >more likely that he is being pressured by individuals involved in the
> >WPX management to do something that he probably doesn't really support.
> >
> >At least I hope that's the case. But it's a black box, and therein
> >lies
> >the problem: no transparency, no consultation with fellow competitors
> >and sudden unilateral surprises.
> >
> >It has been made abundantly clear that this decision is unwelcome to a
> >very large number of serious contesters. Even those who prefer
> >assisted
> >operating have no interest in preventing their their fellow contesters
> >from competing in the way they prefer.
> >
> >The real question now is whether the WPX leadership - whoever it is -
> >has the courage to admit their mistake and reverse this divisive
> >decision. And think about a better process for rule making in the
> >future.
> >
> >We'll find out soon.
> >
> >73, Hal W1NN
> >
> >
> >On 11/20/2020 7:42 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
> >> Hi Bud,
> >>
> >> It's too bad that you don't seem to have respect for operators who
> >compete the contest for which you are now director.
> >>
> >> It seems that you intend to change the rules of the WPX Contest based
> >on your own desires to play with the contest rules for your own
> >excitement and intrigue. I pulled a couple of sentences from your
> >email:
> >>
> >> Bud wrote: "I am particularly excited
> >> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and
> >scores) in
> >> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are
> >available
> >> to all competitors. .... The possibilities are intriguing."
> >>
> >> A lot of serious contesters have put huge effort into WPX Contest
> >operations and are rightly proud of their accomplishments. Does
> >removing a category also result in the removal of the score records for
> >which they strived? Will the SOAB World Records and the other records
> >now be discarded, and the huge efforts to achieve them now go
> >unheralded? Would that show respect for the Contesters who achieved
> >those scores?
> >>
> >> I'm wondering what other categories will be dropped in the future, if
> >the idea intrigues you? Will Multi-Two and Multi-Multi be combined
> >next year? Will QRP be combined with Low Power? Will SO2R be combined
> >with Multi-Single?
> >>
> >> Sometimes I like to think about Contesting in relation to other
> >sports. I think of Contesting as Radiosport. In that vein, I think
> >about Olympic Sports. Would the Olympic Committee combine the 100m run
> >with the 100m hurdles? Would they put the Javelin and Shotput together
> >as one event?
> >>
> >> I would seriously ask you to rescind the rules changes that you have
> >posted, and ask for inputs from the competitors who participate in the
> >WPX Contest, before making changes.
> >>
> >> 73, Rich, N6KT, PJ4K, HC8A, etc.
> >>
> >> On Monday, November 16, 2020, 05:47:05 PM PST, Bud Trench
> ><aa3b.bud@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW are now posted at the CQ WW WPX
> >Website <
> >> https://www.cqwpx.com/rules.htm >.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The creation of the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category was
> >triggered by
> >> the significant reductions in Multi-operator entries in 2020 as a
> >result of
> >> COVID-19. Further, it is fully anticipated that COVID-19 will impact
> >the
> >> heritage multi-op participants again in 2021. I view 2021 as a test
> >case
> >> for the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category, from which we will
> >make
> >> adjustments based on lessons learned.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The reasons for allowing QSO alerting systems in all Single Op
> >Categories
> >> (except the Classic Overlay) have been provided. I am particularly
> >excited
> >> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and
> >scores) in
> >> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are
> >available
> >> to all competitors. How will the top Single Ops from previous years
> >adjust
> >> their operating strategies given that all competitors can leverage
> >increased
> >> access to multipliers and high valued QSOs resulting from QSO
> >alerting
> >> systems? The possibilities are intriguing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I anticipated that some participants would prefer to have the option
> >to
> >> compete without using QSO alerting system, so the Single Op Classic
> >Overlay
> >> was continued after its inaugural authorization in the 2020 WPX
> >contests.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Single Op Classic Overlay category, which was first introduced in
> >WPX in
> >> 2020, was shortened from 36 hours to 24 hours to be consistent with
> >the
> >> Classic Overlay category definition used in CQ WW DX. The Single Op
> >> Classic Overlay continues to support separate scoring and awards in
> >the High
> >> Power and Low Power categories.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bud AA3B
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|