Hi Joe & all,
that's why you would define *fixed* time slots for "wanted duping" (please
re-read David's suggestion), i.e. 6 hours. Meaning if the contest starts at
12 UTC you can work me once between 12 and 18 UTC, 18 and 24 UTC, 0 and 6
UTC, 6 and 12 UTC. No matter what operating times you decide on. Works very
well in the Estonian VHF/UHF/SHF contest! Although I believe the "time
slots" are shorter as is the whole contest so you can rework everybody after
2 hours already (didn't participate during the last years but makes sense
there as the activity is not too high).
But then I can already hear the whiners again as the playing field is still
not level as due to the birthday of their cats they only are able to operate
2 hours in every "dupe shift" ... ;-)) I really want to have your problems
... ;-))
73, Olli - DH8BQA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe" <nss@mwt.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the playing field
> Some of the below is OK, But this part,
> "Allow duplicate contacts in each 6 hour section eg over 24 hours you
> can work the same station 4 times"
>
> This would be a nightmare for everything. Including Duping!
> K9XYZ operates, from 0100 to 0700, take a 1 hour break and gets back on
> at 0800 and goes to 1400.
> W9ABC Is a short timer and only Operates from 0400 till 1000.
>
> W9ABC calls and works K9XYZ at 0600.
>
> Later on K9XYZ calls to work W9ABC at 0800.
>
> How is that worked? to K9XYZ it is a valid QSO but to W9ABC it's a Dupe.
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
> On 6/25/2011 7:24 PM, vk4ti@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Or to keep tradition retain the ARRL DX as is and create ANOTHER
>> contest - mixed modes SSB and CW close to the September equinox for 24
>> hours only using grid squares and distance..
>>
>> 24 hours covers the shorter time frames proposed-
>>
>> 4 X 6 hour "sprints" inside the one test - allowing the time challenged
>> to jump on for a 6 hour spurt - or even two or three -
>>
>> Allow duplicate contacts in each 6 hour section eg over 24 hours you can
>> work the same station 4 times
>>
>> Distance based scoring
>>
>> Trent VK4TI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 26/6/11, David J. Sourdis - HK1A<hk1kxa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: David J. Sourdis - HK1A<hk1kxa@hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the playing field
>>> To: "CQ contest"<cq-contest@contesting.com>
>>> Received: Sunday, 26 June, 2011, 6:12 AM
>>>
>>> I think it would be interesting to try a double scoring
>>> system; the current system and the distance-based system as
>>> category overlay to see what happens. A simple algorithm
>>> using the grid locators with six characters or the
>>> coordinates to calculate distances. One point for each
>>> thousand kilometers , being 0 to 1000 km worth one point. No
>>> long path distances. Max score for a QSO would be 20 points
>>> (19000 to 20000 km)
>>> 73
>>>
>>> David
>>> HK1A
>>> EC5KXA
>>> AE5XQ
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Ed_richardson@shaw.ca
>>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:35:18 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the playing field
>>>>
>>>> My initial reaction to this debate was, "lets do what
>>> we can to level
>>>> the field". However after reading some of the
>>> excellent points on here,
>>>> I am beginning to agree that a level field is a dream
>>> and wouldn't be
>>>> practical. Us folks from the middle of the continent
>>> will not win a DX
>>>> contest. Just too many skip zones to the major DX
>>> population centers.
>>>> However like others have said, setting realistic goals
>>> and challenging
>>>> oneself and other locals, should keep you motivated.
>>> Personally I always
>>>> try to better my last years score, or strive for some
>>> target number of
>>>> Q's.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that I will never win or likely ever place in
>>> the top 10
>>>> doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see some changes.
>>>>
>>>> Distance scoring, makes sense to me. I see no harm in
>>> changing this. A
>>>> east coast station may have the rate to Europe but
>>> others Midwest and
>>>> west coast stations will be reward with more points
>>> even at a lower
>>>> rate.
>>>>
>>>> Another change to consider would be to turn the
>>> contest into more of a
>>>> sprint format. Meaning limit the number of QSO's on a
>>> single frequency.
>>>> Try and prevent the frequency monopolization of a few
>>> big guns that
>>>> scream bloody murder when propagation shifts and you
>>> are in their skip
>>>> zone. They come up on your frequency claiming your are
>>> qrming them and
>>>> they have been on frequency for 44 hours and to please
>>> qsy. A 48 hour
>>>> sprint would be a true iron man contest and would
>>> eliminate the clusters
>>>> and skimmers from playing a part. This would be more
>>> of a test of
>>>> operator skill!
>>>>
>>>> Just my $0.02006 cents worth (The Canadian dollar
>>> being worth more than
>>>> the US$ afterall)
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>> VE4EAR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> -----
> eMail ist virenfrei.
> Von AVG uberpruft - www.avg.de
> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virendatenbank: 1513/3727 - Ausgabedatum: 26.06.2011
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|