In a message dated 10/18/2005 5:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kenharker@kenharker.com writes:
>>The ARRL and CQ are already sponsoring as many contests as I think they
are willing to support with magazine space. The Tesla Cup would be just
another HF DX contest, and one that wouldn't necessarily align with either
organization's award programs. It doesn't surprise me at all that neither
organization took an interest.<<
Maybe "just another", but it would address the problem with good old contests
(can't change them, tradition) and introduce more fair way of scoring, that
would eliminate some of the gross biases that other contests suffer from. With
introduction of QRA squares, there is another factor that is embraced lately
and makes more sense using geographical features. CQ has started field award
using squares. This is something new to chase, and we devised Stripes Award to
be another fun tool to accumulate Stripes over the years. With TC rules one
does not have to travel to Af or SA to be a world winner. So the TC is bringing
and patching holes in the good old contests and their scoring handicaps.
>>As far as "fixing" problems with existing worldwide contests:
* The scoring structure, splitting value between "correctly sent" and
"correctly received" halves of the QSO is very different from any other
contest and hard to understand. How do we know that an exchange was
sent correctly? When it is recorded wrong in the other station's log,
how do you differentiate between incorrect sending and incorrect
receiving?<<
This is to prevent sending station losing QSO and multiplier, if the
receiving station did not receive the exchange right. Nothing new, has been
used back
in OK land some 40 years ago and worked well. Assuming that sending station
sent the exchange what is listed in his log. We are dealing with call and
square, no reason to goof for TX. If RX has an error then he loses points for
this
QSO and no 3 QSO "penalty".
>>* Assuming I'm interpreting it the way I think it must be done, the
scoring structure legitimizes and encourages guessing when copying
other stations' exchanges. Not only are you not penalized for getting it
wrong, you are always guaranteed 1/3 to 1/2 of the contact's potential
points value no matter how badly you copy the callsign or exchange.
It's kind of hard to take such a points structure seriously.<<
If you lose points, how does that encourage guessing? Looks like hard to
shake this 3 QSO punishment mentality.
>>* The rules define QRP as 15 watts, which is very different from other
contests.<<
This will be returned to 5 W. I was trying to stay with 10 dB difference
between power categories, but the tradition of QRP being 5 W is more important.
>>* The single operator class is irrationally split between those operating
from their personal home station and those operating elsewhere. And
those operating as guests at other stations are lumped in with packeteers,
which is just bizarre. This is at variance with essentially every other
contest's definition of what a single operator is.<<
This is to promote operating and competing with the same, from your own
station, but not excluding guests, drive ins, assisted. We don't want TC to be
a
carbon copy of every other contest. Those who built and operate their own
stations/callsign deserve to be recognized. Ham radio station is the station,
callsign and operator. Little different, but not limiting or exclusionary.
Operating
someone else's station, packet assistance is getting assistance, crutch from
someone else.
>>* It's not at all clear to me that the stations entering "club competition"
are also entering the single-op/multi-op categories or not.<<
Yes, one station from each category (10 total) A, O (6x), P, S, M on each
mode, 20 total on both modes. The idea is to have teams from close area, clubs,
one station in each category.
>>* The contest prizes seem too be structured for the economic benefit of
your company. It's one thing for a company to sponsor the cost of
producing a plaque or trophy or something. But when the prize is a
gift certificate that can only be redeemed by spending lots of money
with the contest sponsor, it starts looking like more of a sales promotion
than a genuine competition. If there were more than one sponsor of
that kind of prize, it might not be so objectionable.<<
I tried to incite participation. If that is the problem, then we will
withdraw the "prize" if there are no more donors. Looks to me like benefit to
the
contester, nobody forces him to "cash" the certificate.
>>* The rules say that the organizers accept Cabrillo format logs, but the
Tesla Cup is not a contest supported by the Cabrillo specification. The
rules also specify that logs must be annotated with OFF and ON time period
demarcations, something that the Cabrillo specification does not support.<<
True, this will be removed, we can look for two largest rest periods, no need
to mark it.
>>I will say this, the contest is sufficiently different from the others
(especially in the exchange and multipliers definitions) to be potentially
interesting. I wouldn't be making the claim that it "fixes" problems
experienced in other DX contests, because not everyone sees problems where
you see them. To me, this contest has its own set of "problems," mostly in
a flawed scoring system that can't be taken seriously. If I can only
justify the time to operate so many contests a year, this one just won't
make it into my schedule.<
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|