To A, or not to A = that is the question
|
If you follow the cq-contest reflector, you know of CQ’s conclusion that non-assisted operators no longer warrant full recognition as a standalone category their magazines’ WPX contest.
Using a non-scientific polling method (I copied what they sent me) I recorded the preferences of 1,338 stations in the recent two weekends of the ARRL SweepStakes competition.
827 (62%) of the respondents (those who sent me A, B, or Q) indicated that their preference is non-assisted operation. 509 (38%) of the respondents (those who sent me U or M) indicated that their preference is to operate with assistance.
Do you suppose that ARRL ought to disestablish A, B, and Q, and push those 62% of their participants into U, a category they have so far chosen not to enter?
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ |
|
|
|
|
|
Is ARRL planning on doing that?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 11/23/2020 8:31 PM, Hans Brakob
wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly HOPE NOT!
HB
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of Skip <k6dgw@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:04:48 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] To A, or not to A = that is the question Is ARRL planning on doing that?
73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 11/23/2020 8:31 PM, Hans Brakob wrote:
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ |
|
|
|
|
|
Not that I know of, and I sure hope not as well.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I personally don't like CQ's decision at all and I personally oppose it. Others may disagree but I really don't see the need to put contesters who use radio to find QSOs in the same category with those who use the Internet to find QSOs. I do operate assisted but that's my choice. One more note - I don't like this idea that we have to harmonize the rules between WWROF/CQ contests and ARRL contests. Some things make sense but ARRL's rules can and should be different, and determined by us and our feedback from the community, particularly the membership. In reality, those who make rules for ARRL's contests are directly accountable to dues paying members by virtue of elections, whereas other organizations will have a small committee that is self-selected. So there is definitely a different dynamic. (flame suit on) 73 Ria, N2RJ On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:04 PM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zack Widup
I don't think so and I hope not! 73, Zack W9SZ On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:04 PM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
W0MU
There is no push for this
in ARRL Contests that I am aware of. Is CQ essentially stating
that there is widespread use of clusters and discords and internet
methods of getting spots being used by people claiming to be
unassisted? I found the decision curious.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Mike W0MU CAC Representative Rocky Mountain Division On 11/24/2020 3:16 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
Not that I know of, and I sure hope not as well. I personally don't like CQ's decision at all and I personally oppose it. Others may disagree but I really don't see the need to put contesters who use radio to find QSOs in the same category with those who use the Internet to find QSOs. I do operate assisted but that's my choice. One more note - I don't like this idea that we have to harmonize the rules between WWROF/CQ contests and ARRL contests. Some things make sense but ARRL's rules can and should be different, and determined by us and our feedback from the community, particularly the membership. In reality, those who make rules for ARRL's contests are directly accountable to dues paying members by virtue of elections, whereas other organizations will have a small committee that is self-selected. So there is definitely a different dynamic. (flame suit on) 73 Ria, N2RJ On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:04 PM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:Is ARRL planning on doing that? 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 11/23/2020 8:31 PM, Hans Brakob wrote: If you follow the cq-contest reflector, you know of CQ’s conclusion that non-assisted operators no longer warrant full recognition as a standalone category their magazines’ WPX contest. Using a non-scientific polling method (I copied what they sent me) I recorded the preferences of 1,338 stations in the recent two weekends of the ARRL SweepStakes competition. 827 (62%) of the respondents (those who sent me A, B, or Q) indicated that their preference is non-assisted operation. 509 (38%) of the respondents (those who sent me U or M) indicated that their preference is to operate with assistance. Do you suppose that ARRL ought to disestablish A, B, and Q, and push those 62% of their participants into U, a category they have so far chosen not to enter? |
|
|
|
|
|
CQ WPX committee is saying two things: 1. that lots of people who claim to be unassisted actually use assistance. This is not based on anything scientific AFAIK. It’s based purely on hearsay and a few accused cheating incidents, with some of the victims claiming they were wrongly accused (and a few just simply accepting fate). 2. It’s really hard to tell who’s cheating by operating with assistance. So let’s just eliminate unassisted so that we don’t have to worry about looking for that kind of cheating. 73 Ria N2RJ On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:36 PM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Valentine <N4RJ@...>
Like most things in America today….we are “watering down” those who are using a purist approach. A reflection of the state of our country.
I think we just have to accept a lower standard. That is where we have come.
Defund the Police so we can do what we wish…easier.
Sorry…It is just I think I am seeing.
Maybe the whole ballgame is over…
Val
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 7:06 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] To A, or not to A = that is the question
CQ WPX committee is saying two things:
1. that lots of people who claim to be unassisted actually use assistance. This is not based on anything scientific AFAIK. It’s based purely on hearsay and a few accused cheating incidents, with some of the victims claiming they were wrongly accused (and a few just simply accepting fate).
2. It’s really hard to tell who’s cheating by operating with assistance. So let’s just eliminate unassisted so that we don’t have to worry about looking for that kind of cheating.
73 Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:36 PM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Essentially, from a little pistols point of view, this lumps all SO in like categories. For the most part, as I see it, doubling the numbers in the same category(s). A narrative I do not wish to see the ARRL duplicate, nor do I wish to carry over in CQWW, but unfortunately believe will develop.
My unsubstantiated, non-scientific, opinion leads me to believe that those stations running non-assisted, are stations who have the real estate, equipment, and ability to not need it, and can spend most of the contest “running”. Those (but not all) operating assisted, may often be S & P, thus leveling the playing field in finding multipliers. A ‘niche’ operator can often find a ‘home’ where they can at least place, and feel a sense of accomplishment, instead of being buried in the rubble.
I must be clear that I am not saying an assisted operator has any less skills and/or ability than a non-assisted operator. We all have our reasons for selecting the categories we do.
Dale K8TS
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Hugh Valentine
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 8:10 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] To A, or not to A = that is the question
Like most things in America today….we are “watering down” those who are using a purist approach. A reflection of the state of our country.
I think we just have to accept a lower standard. That is where we have come.
Defund the Police so we can do what we wish…easier.
Sorry…It is just I think I am seeing.
Maybe the whole ballgame is over…
Val
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Ria, N2RJ
CQ WPX committee is saying two things:
1. that lots of people who claim to be unassisted actually use assistance. This is not based on anything scientific AFAIK. It’s based purely on hearsay and a few accused cheating incidents, with some of the victims claiming they were wrongly accused (and a few just simply accepting fate).
2. It’s really hard to tell who’s cheating by operating with assistance. So let’s just eliminate unassisted so that we don’t have to worry about looking for that kind of cheating.
73 Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:36 PM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
doubleopat7@...
There is a common theme with statements and opinions in this thread: special snowflakedom.
The point of a contest is not winning or being on the top. Contests are about doing your best with what you have to work with. Just because you didn't do as well as others doesn't mean you did something for nothing. Instead of dealing with upset special snowflakes, we can tell everyone to pay $10 with their log submission to receive a participation medal. Now, if you want to be at the top, you have work your way there with improving your skill and equipment. And if you're disappointed and saddened that you don't have what someone else has, that's a you problem, not a problem for the administration. And thou shalt not covet. Now this seems pretty unfair in some ways, and I have to agree. As a solution: I feel like there should be 98034567934876987346 different competitions during a standard contest highlighting the different skills of each operator or group, such as best efficiency, q's, grids/entities, etc. by overall competition, category, state, clubs, political affiliation, football team devotion, hand dominance, favorite color, gender, age, and historical results. It would be impossible to have a special snowflake feel disrespected. But unfortunately this idea is very abstract, will potentially (more like absolutely will) be vandalized by politics, and is just too much for the overmatured mind. $.02 73 from your favorite 18 year old debater, Patrick Gawthrop W9GGG |
|
|
|
|
|
From: doubleopat7@...
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 05:29 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] To A, or not to A = that is the question
There is a common theme with statements and opinions in this thread: special snowflakedom.
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ |
|
|
|
|
|
Zack Widup
Everyone has his or her own purpose for being in the contest. The Illinois Marathon takes place in my city every year in April. I like to stand along the route and cheer the participants with some friends. I notice that there are many participants who are there in an attempt to win. There are also a lot of participants who just want to get through the race, to say they were in a marathon. Contest with your own purpose in mind. The guys with the huge stations want to win. Guys like me with little stations just want to have fun. The point of a contest, in general, is to win. But not everyone has that goal. I cannot find fault with either. Do what you want, but get on the air in the contests! Note, my "little station" on VHF+ has garnered me a position in the top three as a Single-Op QRP Portable in many ARRL contests, and first place in that category once. 73, Zack W9S On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:29 PM <doubleopat7@...> wrote: There is a common theme with statements and opinions in this thread: special snowflakedom. |
|
|
|
|
|
tonydicenzo
CQ seems to have gone bonkers. Another very strange rules change is that so called 'Classic' participants (low power, no assistance) are limited to 24 hours, and if they go more than 24 hours only the first 24 hours will be counted.
Well, duh, it is often tthe case that multipliers appear late in a contest period. I see no good reason for this rule, only bad. Another rule I hope ARRL stays far, far away from. PS. Do work the upcoming 10m contest. The SFI is coming up. We need to revive this contest before we lose a lot of participants. You will not see this contest listed in the recent ARRL contest newsletter, but it is still the second full weekend in December (the 12th and 13th). I will be running low power (<150 watts), unassisted this year. Bravo, ARRL, on recognizing many new radios can operate upwards of 200 watts without an amplifier. 73 Tony KX1G 73 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mark - N5OT
I think Ria's assessment is absolutely accurate.
CQ pretty much hit the "easy" button for themselves because a
small number of self-selected volunteers decided life is too short
to enforce the rules in a hobby. Of course that is real easy for
an armchair quarterback to say. Those volunteers work real hard
to maximize the meaningfulness of the results. I'm sad they did
this, and I think there were better solutions, but nobody asked
me.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
73 - Mark N5OT On 11/24/2020 6:05 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Porter <barryp13@...>
The “A” stations are the highly skilled operators. They need to be good listeners and
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
know how to time their transmissions. They also have to really understand propogation. In Sweeps SSB I only made 70 QSO’s. Of these 70, only 7 were from other “A” stations (10%). I had fun. Maybe they need a contest just for “A” power stations without spots. Barry, KB1PA
|
|
|
|
