That's an interesting idea Stan. But I see one fly in the ointment...
You said "I believe it would attract more people. The multiplier factors
could be tweaked in a couple of years to be as fair as possible."
But I question who is going to "tweak" the multiplier factors and to what
end? Is it to tweak them so this new category will out-score all the other
classes or consistently suppress them into second-class finishes?
Heh heh... I guess I'm just primed for this kind of discussion. This morning
I've been reading too much 20th century history about the regional conflicts
of Germany, Poland, and the Czechs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_minority_in_the_Czech_Republic
In any case, I applaud you for a suggesting a new approach (at least I
haven't read it here before).
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Stockton" <k5go@cox.net>
To: "Jim Preston" <jpreston1@cox.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:27 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge - New Category?
> Following is an idea that would perhaps please more people:
>
> To address the discussions about whether it is fair that this operator can
> afford two radios versus only one for someone else, whether this one has
> mastered the ability to use two radios or not, whether this operator has
> Yagi antennas versus dipoles for another, whether you send with a straight
> key or computer, use paper and pencil to log, are on the East Coast versus
> the Midwest, versus the West Coast, whether you are able to copy code on
> your own or want to use a code reader, etc how about creating one more
> category for those who want to compete with multipliers based on
> everything that can be imagined.
>
> For those who want to compete in this category, it will be like playing in
> a golf tournament where handicaps are allowed. If you had a 18 handicap
> and were to shoot 85 you could say on most days that you beat Tiger Woods.
>
> For illustration purposes only:
>
> One Radio - QSO Points times 100%
> SO2R - QSO Points times 80%
> Various Levels of ERP by band with different multipliers for different
> levels of ERP
> CW Sent manually - 100%
> CW Sent with computer - 90%
> Code copied by operator - 100%
> Code copied by code reader - 90%
> Packet Spots - 85%
> Skimmer Spots - 70%
> No help by anyone or anything to spot stations - 100%
>
> Etc, etc. With this format and most everything that can be imagined for
> which to handicap the effort, everyone who wanted to compete in this
> category could do so feeling it was somewhat of a level playing field.
> Perhaps this would become the most popular category of entry -
> Certificates to the top 50 in the country.
>
> Regardless, the current most popular category of entry could be left for
> the current majority, who want to compete in the traditional way.
>
> There are those who would never enter a golf tournament where handicaps
> were factored and others who would only enter if they were. This would
> give more options for those who want something different from what we have
> now and only be one more category.
>
> I believe it would attract more people. The multiplier factors could be
> tweaked in a couple of years to be as fair as possible.
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
>
> ---- Jim Preston <jpreston1@cox.net> wrote:
>> Stan Stockton wrote:
>> > K0RC Wrote
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> > 1. Single operators are to copy all Morse code signals with their own
>> > ears.
>> >
>> > Translation must be directly from Morse code audio to written or typed
>> > text by the single operator using the single operator's human brain for
>> > translation. A code reader or readers or any other method or means
>> > that
>> > may be devised to translate Morse Code into text or other visual or
>> > audio translation is not allowed.
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> >
>> > Stan, K5GO
>>
>> To which should be added:
>>
>> 1.1 Sending of Morse code shall be done completely by hand using a
>> hand-key, or at most a "bug". The use of a memory keyer or computer
>> generated cw puts the operator in the Assisted class.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Why is it that some are opposed to the use of code readers, but not code
>> senders? Isn't the ability to send code as important as the ability to
>> copy it? For the record, I use computer generated cw, and I also use a
>> code reader when needed (over about 30 wpm).
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jim N6VH
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|