Misleading callsigns are of more fundamental concern to me than their
impact on logging and post-contest scoring. One reason why CQWW is the
premier DX contest is a points and multiplier structure that rewards
contacts that are "difficult" (distant, rare, from a rate-unfavourable
area, etc). Unless you happen to be exotic DX, perhaps in KH2 (K2?),
participants must look for and work specific stations to make a winning
score. The success of CQWW relies on the ability to be able to determine
in real time the locations of stations heard. Without this it would become
a strategy-poor rate-only contest. I applaud rules which require calls to
best represent their location.
Occasional ambiguity in prefix - e.g. VP8, GB, TO, KG4 - can be considered
part of the test, but wholesale "mixing" of US prefixes is unhelpful. I am
gearing up for ARRL 10m. I hope to make some QSOs with West Coast stations
but propagation will make this a challenge this year. I want to be able to
identify W6/W7 without wasting time listening for full exchanges. I guess
I have to accept that the contiguous US is one big callsign entity with no
geographical sub-division but I can't help thinking this is a retrograde
step for contests.
Steve G0AEV
Where G0 = just anywhere in England. But it's a small country... ...
Incidentally, for K7QQ's information, KH6DX/M is **not** in England:
M/KH6DX (or properly M0/KH6DX) is. Good logging software can tell the
difference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Taylor [SMTP:ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 2:25 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Misleading callsigns
Some interesting research:
ARRL 10 meter and ARRL DX contests both require your callsign to accurately
reflect your DXCC entity.
|