That may seem so but in W2 competing with W1 seems lopsided.
For example someone competing in central NJ with coastal Maine will have
two vastly different propagation conditions. We are talking strong morning
band openings 2-3 hours earlier in W1 Maine compared to W2.
Unless you have a superstation like RHR summit which is on the same
latitude as W1 then you stand a chance. If not, forget it.
I mean if you’re going to just select the best of the best of the best
(with honors) in that whole encompassing W1-W3 region maybe just forget the
whole selection process and just pick all the big guns from W1.
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:37 AM Tonno Vahk <tonno.vahk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Introduction of those score comparison areas within a single qualification
> area is a horrible idea. They did the same in EU1 (splitting Baltics and
> Scandinavia) and pretty much destroyed motivation to participate for many
> Baltic ops.
>
> It is absurd and unfair and also seems to be complicated enough to take
> more than 5 emails to explain to someone as shown below.
>
> It distorts the results completely and works in an opposite way to an
> expected WRTC concept of selecting best ops.
>
> It clearly favors less active sub region. The bigger the difference
> between the number of competitve entrats in sub regions the more distorted
> it becomes.
>
> For example.
>
> In W3 there are 3 active contesters who take a serious shot at WRTC place.
>
> In W1 and W2 there are 10 such entrants.
>
> So in W3 those 3 ops share between themselves the top scores from all
> qualification contests. Even though they usually make lower scores than the
> leaders in W1/2.
>
> In W1/2 10 entrants share the top scores and battle hard with each other.
> They share the top scores between 10 of them in both regions.
>
> The result - ALL 3 qualification spots go to W3 entrants as they all have
> higher scores given lower competition in their sub area.
>
> This is absolutely crazy and surely qualifies into the Top 10 of the worst
> ideas of the history of humankind. The organizers completely ignore the
> facts and reality though and in EU1 case just did this to please a certain
> lobby group without ever asking for opinions of others.
>
> Maybe the scenario above is hypothetical in W1-3 case, I do not know. But
> in EU1 case it is very real and the qualification race and WRTC that many
> Baltic ops were waiting with great expectations was over for many of them
> before it ever started.
>
> Something has to be done with this WRTC system to avoid every new
> organizer turning things upside down introducing new rules as they please
> for whatever most absurd or shady reasons. This is not how it should be if
> we want to keep this thing alive.
>
> 73
> ES5TV
>
> On 25. Oct 2023, at 03:32, Ron Notarius W3WN via CQ-Contest <
> cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> Ed, so in short, you believe that as written and as interpreted by you,
> the current rules give an unfair advantage to the top W1, W2, and W3 region
> scores, compared to everyone else competing from those regions.
>
> Well, sorry to say, life isn’t always fair.
>
> But it sounds like your beef is with the WRTC 2026 Organizers.
>
> 73
>
> 73, Ron W3WN
>
> > On Oct 24, 2023, at 8:17 PM, Edward Sawyer <
> EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com <mailto:EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ron. Lets use this example. The W1 winner has 1,000,000 as a score
> and I am number 2 with 950,000. W1 winner gets 1,000 points and I get 950
> points. Lets say number 3 and 4 get 900,000 points and they are in W2 and
> W3. The old way, would have me #2 after the first contest. This new way,
> has 3 people at 1,000 points and I have 950 points and I am now number 4.
> >
> > Simple math.
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> >
> > From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 7:48 PM
> > To: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com>
> > Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Scoring Question
> >
> > Ed, I didn’t write, or was involved in writing, the rules, so I couldn’t
> possibly answer why they were written the way you describe.
> >
> > I still don’t see your point. Are you saying that the rules are set up
> to favor certain operators over others? Or just that they’re poorly
> written... or at least not clear in their intent?
> >
> > 73
> >
> > 73, Ron W3WN
> >
> > On Oct 24, 2023, at 4:37 PM, Edward Sawyer <
> EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com <mailto:EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ron, Then why not say there is one TL for W1 and W2 and W3. Instead of
> calling 3 TL from the area and then distorting the qualifying.
> >
> > Have 3 people “win” every contest that are all actually competing for
> the same slots is illogical. It is NOT what you just described.
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> >
> > From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net <mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:37 PM
> > To: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com <mailto:
> EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com>>
> > Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Scoring Question
> >
> > I’m not sure I understand the question.
> >
> > There are three qualifying districts. The top score in each qualifies.
> Simple. Right?
> >
> > So what’s the issue?
> >
> > 73, Ron W3WN
> >
> > On Oct 24, 2023, at 12:14 PM, Edward Sawyer <
> EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com <mailto:EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com
> ><mailto:EdwardS@advanced-conversion.com>> wrote:
> > I wanted to put out the question to the group here to see if I am
> interpreting this correctly.
> >
> > In the 1st qualification area of the US, there are 3 qualifying
> districts, W1, W2, W3. If the highest score in W1 is 5 Million and the
> highest score in W2 is 4 Million and the highest score in W3 is 3 Million,
> there will be 3 people that made those highest scores earning 1,000 points
> - assuming they are all HP Unassisted. So instead of 1 winner of the area
> there are actually 3 winners of the area for every contest. And there are
> only 3 TL selected from the W1, W2, W3 area. Even though there could have
> been numerous scores much higher than the W3 score in this example, the W3
> winner will get the same credit as if they had the 5 Million score.
> >
> > If the above is correct, this seems highly distorted. You are
> guaranteeing 3 x 1000 point winners in the contest vs it should only have 1
> x 1000 points.
> >
> > Please comment on whether this is in fact right. Doesn't feel right....
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com><mailto:
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
|