The only downside I can see would be if a club with a hundred not-so-serious
about winning members, for example, decided they would try to ensure victory
for one of their members who was serious about winning. If each of them had a
second call sign they could switch to on Sunday, the potential would be created
to double the impact of what could already be done now.
Imagine 200 contacts, all on Sunday afternoon, in the log of a serious
competitor with none of those call signs in the log of anyone else who has more
than a thousand contacts.
Stan, K5GO
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Jimk8mr@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks to K2AV for writing this for me.
>
> For years I've been doing SOMS - Single Op, Multi Station - in the CW SS.
> That contest becomes really fun when the rate goes *UP* as the contest goes
> on.
>
> Last year, needing another serious single operator entry for WRTC ranking,
> I did a traditional one station effort from AC8E. I won the Great Lakes
> Division, and was bored out of my mind after the first 14 hours or so.
>
> I don't understand the ARRL's phobia about the use of more than one call
> per transmitter or QTH (family stations exempted). It's not going to prevent
> manufactured contacts - somebody doing that simply would not send in a log
> for that call(s).
>
> CQ doesn't share the phobia, and I like it. In the recent CQ 160 contest I
> started over the second night as W3USA, and was running 120 hours with low
> power. It was a lot more fun than tuning around trying to keep the rate
> above 40. I hope nobody I worked twice minded. (I also got back on for the
> last hour Sunday afternoon as K8MR, for another 40 or so QSOs. But I would
> not
> object to the concept of forbidding this).
>
> I would suggest a couple of variations on what K2AV suggested. I don't see
> a need to limit an operator to 24 hours among the various calls. If he is
> still going strong at hour 24 at 0200z Monday, let him go. I don't see the
> need to limit it to two calls. And I don't see need for an off time when
> switching calls, But these are minor points.
>
> I sense that there are lots of people who by the end of SS (or other
> contests) who know they aren't going to win and don't care. But they would
> have
> a lot of fun as "fresh meat". And the rest of us contest carnivores would be
> delighted to take what they offer.
>
>
> 73 - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/1/2013 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> olinger@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> Reads like, you can do anything, except the rules are off the table, so
> basically you are talking about people selling the Sweepstakes. Clubs will
> for club competition. But individuals to other individuals? Folks do
> this
> word of mouth thing and that's how good things grow.
>
> But you take the rules entirely off the table and you hope the big clubs
> are in there. After that, you wanna pay money to advertise the SS on TV?
>
> The biggest individually self-limiting aspect the contest has is
> saturation. Work out the stations and slow way down, but this encourages
> "fresh meat" stations on Sunday that get a lot of attention. At PVRC we
> tell the guys that can only put in 5-6-7 hours to do it on Sunday, and run,
> not S&P, and forget about chasing mults on spots. If by increased
> participation you mean total QSO count, that strategy works.
>
> If someone could suggest a rule change, and this is partially allowed now,
> but is a mechanical nightmare, and that is starting over with a new call
> sign. If you change stations and use "unused" transmitters you can do it
> now. NCCC used it extensively at one time.
>
> You could ALLOW a second call sign to be used at the same station on the
> same equipment by the same operator. Once second call sign in use, log of
> first call sign used by that op is frozen and can't be used again in the
> contest. Either call sign could only be used once in the contest and
> cannot have overlapping start and finish times. Stop of one and start of
> the other must be separated by a legal off time (30 minutes currently)
> Think everything you need to enforce that is in the log. With that rule
> some of us in club competition would start Sunday morning with second call
> sign. The timing of the switch to maximize a club score would be a real
> science. A pair of logs from the same operator would be listed and scored
> separately, eligible for awards only separately. Separate log submission
> to the robot. The two logs combined subject to the 24 hour limit. It
> would sure change Sunday afternoon. Let the clubs worry about how they
> award their internal awards.
>
> Those who want to max out for top scores and awards just keep doing what
> they are doing. Just more call signs to work overall. "Double-signing"
> would be optional and up to the individual. Doesn't mess with records,
> other rules, just allows an option that might make Sundays fun.
>
> If you want to leave it to the operator whether they want to sleep or not,
> then just say that the log of one call in a pair must have all its "on"
> times entirely within the legal "off" times of the other, and all current
> rules for time and max still apply to each log separately. ARRL log
> scoring program handle that easily. Operators would restart logging
> program on the other call. Logging program coders would be asked to not
> support instant call flipping.
>
> The improvement in total score from an individual op's two logs would come
> not so much from lack of sleep as it would from making Sunday meaningful
> when you've operated hard on Saturday.
>
> That's a rule change that wouldn't mess with scoring, records, awards, etc,
> and would increase the total QSO count, especially on Sunday. Clubs would
> need to strategize. But they're deep into that already.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|