CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW,

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW,
From: "Christian Schneider" <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:17:29 +0200
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
"If bands aren't congested, this shouldn't be a problem. If bands are
congested...there will be no "up" to send the pileup to, and therefore you
should stick with working simplex."

My bet - we will have more and more "up"-running stations simply for THEIR
effectiveness (like with signing every umpteenth qso). What will happen to
the running station whose frequency suddenly gets clobbered by a pileup
listening elsewhere? The pileup will clear this frequency soon from him,
especially if the "up"-running station is a sought after multiplier. And
what if the clickers take "up1" literally, so that all again will call on
zero beat, only 1kc higher? Or isn´t it more likely that an "up"-pileup by
the nature of spreading spreads itself?
It surely will make the contest more "dynamic", i.e. detecting which pile-up
belongs to whom. When split is the cure for a problem (clickers) then it
cures with another problem. Not much to be done without rules 15 lines long
and having 2,65 soon detected loopholes...
Small sarcasm off.
73, Chris (DL8MBS)

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>