[wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor

Marvin Bloomquist n5aw at 281.com
Thu Aug 23 11:55:32 EDT 2012


Unfortunately Steve is right. Of course there may be some running more power 
than allowed in the HP category too, just easier to do in LP. Difficult to 
detect although the reverse beacon network might hold the potential to do 
that some day.

I do think it is true though that the weighting factors themselves influence 
the competitiveness - reducing the number of serious competitors in the low 
power and assisted categories and increasing them in the multi-single 
category. Whether changing them would result in a fairer selection process 
is hard to say.

Marv N5AW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve London" <n2icarrl at gmail.com>
To: <wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor


I'm sorry to have to say this, but the effect of making the LP and HP 
weighting
factors the same would indeed result in more stations claiming to operate 
LP.
But how many of those new converts to LP will really be running LP ?

The law of unintended consequences at work.

73,
Steve, N2IC

On 08/22/2012 10:33 PM, Marvin Bloomquist wrote:
> I really don't have a problem with the present weighting factor for LP but 
> if
> you think about it, a penalty for low power makes that category less 
> attractive
> and hence less competitive. If the weighting was the same as high power 
> and LP
> was seen as less competitive it is logical to assume some of those 
> seriously
> competing for a WRTC spot as HP would change to LP thus making it more
> competitive and ultimately things would even out. Something to think about 
> anyway.
> Marv N5AW
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Chris Plumblee <mailto:chris.plumblee at gmail.com>
>     *To:* VE5ZX <mailto:ve5zx at hotmail.com>
>     *Cc:* cq-contest at contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> ;
>     wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org <mailto:wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:23 PM
>     *Subject:* [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
>
>     Syl,
>
>     Lost in the discussion, I think, is the difficult balancing act that 
> the
>     wrtc team has to do to balance out the very real geographic 
> inequalities
>     with the category choices that we all make when we operate. Residents 
> of
>     areas with dense populations of serious contesters might as easily say 
> that
>     the high score in ve5 receiving the same wrtc qualification score as 
> the
>     high score in ve3 is not fair. Depending on the relative seriousness 
> of both
>     entries it might not be entirely fair, but it's the fairest of all
>     possibilities. I've interspersed some additional comments below for 
> those
>     who are inclined to read on.
>
>     The reality of our hobby is that the best measure of who is the best
>     operator is who can score best in the single op categories, and the 
> category
>     with the most serious entries and the most competition on a regional,
>     national, and international basis is almost universally single op, 
> high
>     power. The scoring weight for single op low power was adjusted upward 
> this
>     year in an attempt to be more equitable, as Dan pointed out.
>
>     On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, VE5ZX wrote:
>
>         The post was to CQ-Contest first because I was unaware of this 
> reflector
>          >Many argue that operating in the actual WRTC event requires 
> skills
>         that closer align to HP operations as the sought-after WRTC 
> operators
>         can run more frequently than typical LP entrants
>         Gosh comments like that are annoying and naïve! It assumes that a 
> LP
>         operator has never worked HP in a contest perhaps at big station. 
> This
>         logic is one of the reasons that contesting is losing its interest 
> for
>         me. Too much speculation and too many decisions behind closed 
> doors!!
>
>
>     Given no evidence to the contrary (ie scores from a big station in 
> some
>     category or another) that seems a very logical conclusion to draw. the
>     scoring algorithm was published before it was adopted and was open for
>     comment at that time.
>
>          > It would seem that you could better keep pace with your 
> competition
>         by using LP than if you ventured into HP when using a smaller 
> station,
>         even with the 10% score adjustment.
>         Gosh this sort of reasoning evades me. Enter a class that you are 
> not in
>         just so you can get the 10% that the WRTC rules take away from 
> you.
>         Nonsense! And from the off reflector comments I have been getting 
> from
>         other LP operators they rightfully feel completely discounted by 
> the
>         WRTC rules too.
>
>
>     I think what Dan was saying is that, in your specific situation, you 
> would
>     be better served by entering low power and taking the 10% hit to your
>     maximum score, rather than competing with the larger stations using 
> high
>     power. Not all low power contested feel slighted, as n4ydu states 
> below.
>
>          >Thirdly, I wonder aloud why this topic arises now, two years 
> after the
>         selection criteria were issued.
>         I guess because many people are afraid of standing up to the 
> contesting
>         establishment. And I just became aware of rules when I found out 
> via the
>         grape vine that I was 2nd ranked in my zone. So I looked at the 
> way the
>         ranks were determined. What an insight and what a mess!
>         Oh Well.
>         Syl – VE5ZX
>
>
>     73,
>     Chris wf3c
>
>         *From:* K1to at aol.com
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:29 PM
>         *To:* wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
>         *Cc:* cq-contest at contesting.com
>         *Subject:* Re: [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
>         (This reply was interrupted by a lightning strike here in FL!)
>         Syl et al,
>         First, some historical perspective: For WRTC-2010, the factor for 
> SOLP
>         was 0.7. We sought to increase the incentive for operating LP in
>         WRTC-2014 qualifying events, and, after much behind-the-scenes
>         discussion, arrived at 0.9. Many argue that operating in the 
> actual WRTC
>         event requires skills that closer align to HP operations as the
>         sought-after WRTC operators can run more frequently than typical 
> LP
>         entrants.
>         Secondly, I disagree that it hurts the urban op. It would seem 
> that you
>         could better keep pace with your competition by using LP than if 
> you
>         ventured into HP when using a smaller station, even with the 10% 
> score
>         adjustment.
>         Thirdly, I wonder aloud why this topic arises now, two years after 
> the
>         selection criteria were issued.
>         Lastly, I see that you also posted this to CQ-Contest, thus the 
> copy to
>         that list as well.
>         GL & 73, Dan, K1TO
>         WRTC-2014 Team Selection Director
>         In a message dated 8/22/2012 2:22:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>         ve5zx at hotmail.com writes:
>
>             The WRTC 2014 Team Selection criteria are given here
>             http://www.wrtc2014.org/qualifying/team-selection/
>
>             Could some please explain why the SO LP weighting factor (0.9) 
> is
>             less than
>             the SO HP (1.0) weighting factor?
>
>             It penalizes those of us that live in a urban environment and 
> need
>             to run LP
>             in order to keep peace with the neighbors :)
>
>             tnx - Syl - VE5Zx
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             wrtc2014 mailing list
>             wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
>             http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
>         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         _______________________________________________
>         wrtc2014 mailing list
>         wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
>         http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
>
>
>     --
>     Chris Plumblee
>     407.494.5155
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     wrtc2014 mailing list
>     wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
>     http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
_______________________________________________
wrtc2014 mailing list
wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014 



More information about the wrtc2014 mailing list