And recently have been.
73 John AF5CC
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 1:16 PM AB1J via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
> How was the survey conducted? Is it representative of the contest
> community?
> Self-selected surveys are seldom accurate.
>
> In addition, it was taken five years ago. Times change.
>
> Even carefully conducted polls can be wrong.
>
> 73,
> Ken, AB1J
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com>
> To: dimitri <cosson-dimitri@bbox.fr>
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2020 3:30 pm
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW
>
> If the vast majority support the changes, why does the survey data say
> otherwise?
>
> 73
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:38 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|