If someone in the US doesn't know their grid, couldn't they just send there Zip
Code?
Julius Fazekas
N2WN
Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Jimk8mr@aol.com <Jimk8mr@aol.com> wrote:
> From: Jimk8mr@aol.com <Jimk8mr@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous CQ 160 Contest
> To: tod@k0to.us, cq-contest@contesting.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:59 PM
> I enjoy the Stew Perry in part because of the grid square
> exchange. I like
> to dream that I am working all those cool grids on six
> meters, even though
> it's really on 160.
>
> Tod is onto a good idea of a default "I don't know
> my grid" entry, but I
> think it should be put in the log by the serious guy. If a
> little guy knows
> from the rules to send "AA11", he very likely to
> know, or to learn, what his
> grid square is.
>
> Especially on SSB, there would be a lot of "what's
> your QTH?" probing to get
> a proper grid square from an unknowing person. (After all,
> he could be a new
> mult.) If all failed, then "AA11" could be
> entered as an "I worked this
> guy, but he was clueless" entry. If a lazy big gun
> logged a weak guy as "AA11"
> and the guy sent in a log showing otherwise, then the big
> gun would lose the
> qso, maybe with a modest penalty.
>
> The meaningless RST could be dropped to keep the exchange
> to two items - the
> Grid Square and S/P/or CQ Zone. K8MR sends EN91 OH;
> PJ2T sends FK62 09.
>
> It would be further cool to have the CQ computers score the
> contest in
> several ways. The traditional way; a Stew Perry pure
> distance way; a combination
> of the two, with multipliers (whatever they might be) and
> qso points
> determined by distance. So there might be several winners,
> or maybe even the same guy
> winning under all scoring systems.
>
> Lots of interesting ways to do this, if the Not Invented
> Here syndrome of
> other CQ contests can be avoided.
>
>
> 73 - Jim K8MR
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2009 4:32:24 P.M. Eastern Standard
> Time, tod@k0to.us
> writes:
>
> It has been said that "plagiarism is the sincerest
> form of flattery".
>
> I am in agreement with the thought that it would not be
> appropriate to
> "imitate" the Stew Perry Contest. However, it
> might be appropriate to
> incorporate a key feature of that contest -- the grid
> square as a part of
> the exchange -- in a revised CQ 160 Contest.
>
> Tom's ,VE3CX, comments about considering the
> effect/challenge for casual
> operators who participate in the CQ 160 certainly deserves
> consideration. I
> can imagine that the revised exchange would become
> "59(9), Section {or DX
> entity) and Grid-Square. If one did not know their grid
> square they could
> send AA11 as the grid square and the scoring could simply
> allocate the
> minimum amount of points to that particular QSO.
> [Section/DX Multipliers
> would be multiplied times the QSO point total]
>
> The interesting thing with including both the Section and
> the Grid-Square is
> that there will continue to be motivation to make a
> "sweep" as well as
> motivation to work hard to get the distant Grid-Squares
> for QSO point
> increases.
>
> Since there is no multiplier for QRP/Low Power and there
> would be a
> multiplier for number of Sections/DX worked, the proposed
> "NEW CQ 160 would
> hardly be considered to be 'cheapening' the Stew
> Perry. At the same time,
> persons participating in order to achieve WAS or capture
> DX entities would
> have that information from the exchange as opposed to a
> somewhat arcane grid
> location.
>
>
>
>
>
> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know
> what is making
> headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|