Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KN6SD, Sep 1, 2021.
Once again, vote with your wallet.
"Never forget! Never forgive! No matter how petty the issue
This policy was revoked and resolved three years ago.
"Never forgive, never forget, never pay attention to what is actually going on!".
In what way? How are Directors not allowed to discuss things with members?
What would make QST higher quality in your opinion?
I have every QST from the mid-1920s to today, and I've read all of them, plus many of the very early issues. I've watched the evolution of the magazine over the decades.
Also the complaints...
- "QST is too technical - we're not all engineers!" So QEX was created, and the really technical stuff was moved there.
- "QST is full of contests, contests, contests" So the full contest rules and results were moved to online, and the QST reports made smaller and focused on the winners.
- "QST is too 'dry' - not enough human interest." So more space was given to pictures and stories.
- "QST only focuses on the latest fad - modes like AM and technologies like tubes are ignored" So a vintage radio column was started, and there are more articles about modes other than SSB, FM and digital.
- "QST has too many ads!" - Looking at older issues, I see that the percentage of space given to ads hasn't really changed in half a century if not more. What HAS changed is that the ads are in color, and are all grouped in the front and back of the magazine.
What would you add? What would you change?
btw - note that anyone can write for QST, and the ARRL pays for articles.
What do you think would increase membership?
Those fees are driven by inflation. Everything costs more.
How would you implement such a system? Some form of member referendum?
And - how do you know what the majority of the members want?
Is that documented?
I'm not saying people don't have legitimate beefs. I'm asking what they are in detail.
Incentive licensing by chance?
The topic invariably came up from time to time when I was on staff. My response was unvaried: "Sir [it was always a sir], I wasn't born when incentive licensing happened."
Why was the gentleman referring to incentive licensing?
I have defended them for decades because they are the only ones "fighting for us" but I am not sure I can do that any longer.
It’s easy to confuse their “fighting for us” with fighting for their own self-preservation. It’s hard to find any evidence their motives aren’t the latter.
Less threads like this.
When things devolve into nothing more than partisan slanging matches, the sensible say screw the lot of you, i am out, nothing I can contribute here. Ultimately, members want to feel valued and see value from the organization, but all they see are dick waving contests, bitching and moaning someone wont do it my way or he touched me on the frequency so I will never forgive them and the defenders of the faith, blindly going where no one has gone before.
A pox on all the zealotry I say.
What better way to turn people off, than to twist ideas for change into one more church that forgets we are all human beings. -- Jello Biafra.
I’m unclear how silencing all criticism leads to improving anything.