At 09:08 AM 12/6/2005 -0800, Scott Robbins wrote:
> >>I have had to read so much of this stuff, I finally am driven to have MY
>say.<<
>
>My say would be that the ultimate rule alteration for DX contests would be to
>adopt the CW Sprint QSY rule. It would eliminate stations from staking out a
>CQ frequency, would help mimimize the 'east coast advantage' in DX contests,
>would emphasize skill over power and would put a permanent end to the debate
>over who is cheating by using packet spotting because packet would be rendered
>totally useless.
>
>Combine that with using grid squares as the multipliers and using the scoring
>method by distance from square to square a la the Stew Perry Topband contest
>and you'd have the ingredients for quite an amazing event. Make it a 24 hour
>event on both modes simultaneously like IARU so there is only one set of band
>openings through the contest...wow. A boy can dream, can't he?
>
>I like CQ WW the way it is - no changes needed. But a 24 hour DX contest with
>the Sprint QSY rule, both modes concurrent, scoring based on distance worked
>and multipliers by grid square would truly be one competitive, tough event.
>
>OK, back into my cave...
>
>Scott W4PA
********************************
I second Scott's suggestion, a new contest should be defined. Let's face
it, the present contest standards are popular because they offer rules and
activity people like. They are going to change only slightly over time, if
at all. However If someone could sponsor a new contest along the following
lines, it could level the playing field a lot and encourage more activity,
as more people would have a chance to be competitive. It's not trivial to
sponsor and adjudicate a contest. Hats off to the present sponsors who put
in the time and effort. Your efforts are to be applauded and
recognized. But if an organization got behind a new concept, I feel it
would become very popular, because more people have a chance to be
competitive. This is the key factor, along with a real time indication of
performance.
(1) Exchange includes a Serial Number and Zone (CQ or ITU). The S/N would
indicate a real time indication of activity, and would require copying
something other than the other station's call sign. S/Ns for multi-multi
stations would be band based, so the single band entries would have an
indication of their rates compared with the individual band-stations of the
multi-multis. Multi-2 stations, if permitted, should have a single number
for each transmitter.
(2) Mults include both DXCC entity and Zone (CQ or ITU)-a double mult
concept. Keep the DXCC entities, as the basic thrill of DXing is a strong
pull. A "double mult" is quite a thrill. A grid square might be an
efficient way to provide a distance multiplier, but it lacks pizzazz.
(3) Mults count on all six bands (encourage moving and six band operation).
(4) Some way to recognize that more points should be awarded for longer
distance contacts and less points should be awarded for shorter
contacts. This could be done by an algorithm using CQ or ITU zones and an
average short-path distance between the centers of the two Zones. I
realize one can be in a "far" or "close" portion of a Zone compared with
another Zone, but at least a West Coast USA (CQ 3, ITU 6) to Western Europe
(CQ 15, ITU 27) contact would be awarded more than areas which have a
distinct propagation advantage, such as the East Coast USA to Western
Europe. Likewise, a JA opening from W3 to Japan would receive more points
than a W6 run to JA.. The intent is to level the playing field a bit, and
encourage operators to look for tougher paths when they are open. QSO
points are awarded for all contacts. A QSO with one's own Zone is worth
one point. Contest programs currently calculate QSO points based on a
table with DXCC entities and their continents, so it would be relatively
easy to calculate the Zone-to-Zone distances, and assign a point/QSO
total. The QSO point totals should include a point system which
accentuates the value of a longer distance contact. The details would be
considered to be reasonable and reward longer paths which are open for
shorter time windows. This would eliminate the present system that rewards
500 mile (or less) contacts with maximum points because they are in
different continents. This simply is ridiculous from a logical standpoint.
(5) Set time limits for Single-Ops; 36 out of 48 hours max, or 18 hours out
of 24 hours That will encourage more serious competitors and make strategy
more of a factor.
(6) Although the CW Sprint is my favorite contest, I don't support giving
up the ability for a station to run on a frequency. Thus I have not
incorporated the "Sprint QSY Rules." Frankly, many people find that
difficult, and I am concerned it would limit participation. In the long
run, we want to get as much participation as possible. Real competition
with a more level playing field will help participation worldwide.
Jim George N3BB
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|