Let's not lose the fact that contests on 160 are events as much as contests… they are times when an otherwise barren band fills up. There's a lot of fun just in working all you can.
Those of us in deep valleys in Western Colorado have a hard time appreciating the extreme difficulties faced by Eastern stations located on Islands surrounded by salt water. On Dec 18, 2012, at 6:05 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Some may say this is poor sportsmanship....but I have tried to get > > someone to recognize that changes are important to bring out a better > > contest product. I understand those in their ivy covered office > > buildings and who call the shots, really don't care to even entertain > > change for the better. > > ARRL 160 Meter contest is essentially a 160 Sweepstakes that allows > W/VE stations to work DX. If you don't like the format of the contest, > don't work it ... after all, there were no VE8, VY1, etc. stations on > and haven't been for many years. Change is not necessary and would > only hurt a well established product - particularly a change that you > advocate that would only benefit a handful of stations who already > benefit immensely in other contests. > > There are those who don't like CQ's format, those who don't like the > new ARRL 10 Meter format with Mexican States (why Mexico and not > Brazil or Argentina, or Chile, or Venezuela?) - the choice is to not > participate and certainly demand changes that will benefit only *ONE* > or at most a handful of stations. If you go giving one or two sections > a special scoring advantage, why limit it to KP2/KP4? Certainly the > scoring disadvantage is just as great in the case of NFL vs. C6 or SFL > vs. CO. Once you start making special accommodations where does it > stop - GA, SC, NC AL MS? > > Every set of contest rules gives some an advantage - it's far easier > for VY2, VE1, VE9, W1 to work all the 5 point DX than others - and > gives some a disadvantage - who wants to be W6/W7 for ARRL 160 - > that's the breaks. Other contests have advantages for another set > of operators. You don't screw up a contest with 40 years of history > because one or two individuals don't like the format - there will > always be boundary cases EA9 vs. ZB, IG9/IG9 vs. 9H, 9Y vs. J3, > HP vs, HK ... the list can go on and on. > > No matter what the rules are, *someone* will complain. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > > On 12/18/2012 7:14 PM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote: >> On 12/18/2012 7:11 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: >>> You have bitched for years that DX >>> thought the could not work you - I can find the references in the >>> archives going back almost to be beginning of this list) but it >>> would mean that you got to count each QSO with the rest of us on >>> the mainland as 5 points instead of 2 points. Now you want to be >>> able to work DX but count all your QSOs as five points instead >>> of two? >> I may have "bitched" but who wouldn't after being told and scolded by DX >> stations "no DX no DX QRZ W/VE only" Many I guess were as confused as i >> was in calling them in the first place. Again I only want this contest >> to show an element of fairness. I guess if I do as you suggested then >> next time stations will not only miss KP4 which did not show this time >> but also KP2. So about working ARRL sections and as some insist that it >> is only a 160 meter version of Sweepstakes, then let it be so and like >> in the much highly enshrined SS not permit *any* DX. Working DX on 160, >> not some archaic sections is what I am interest in. If participants >> were tuned into working DX you would not find the band covered by 100's >> of incessant CQ machines every few hertz trying to hold on to there spot >> and not working much of anything. I think next time I will do what I >> wanted to do this time, just work DX and have my phased Beverages on >> Europe and Africa selected. >> Some may say this is poor sportsmanship....but I have tried to get >> someone to recognize that changes are important to bring out a better >> contest product. I understand those in their ivy covered office >> buildings and who call the shots, really don't care to even entertain >> change for the better. >> >> >> Herb, KV4FZ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground >> whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell >> > _______________________________________________ > It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever > for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell > _______________________________________________ It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell
