Shorten it... better for family time, less Sunday boredom, etc.
I think this idea has something for everyone. I know a lot of the older
guys who no longer choose to stay in the chair due to ailments. I know a
number of the younger guys who choose to not stay in the chair due to
family time. The third is the shear boredom factor of a one contact per
station rule.
I could go with the break period too... maybe two hours like NAQP? I
personally like the decision making involved with when to break. Plus we
can take a walk, sleep, eat dinner with our loved ones, etc.
73,
Tim/ N6WIN.
On Feb 6, 2013 12:27 PM, "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 11:42 AM, RT Clay wrote:
>
> Yes, the fix is simple: shorten the overall length to 24 hours. Still
>> keep a required off time of 6 hours. > The off time is important to allow
>> stations in different parts of the country to choose the best times to >
>> operate (day/night). That is particularly important for small stations.
>> Choosing when to take off is also > part of SS strategy.
>>
>
> I could almost warm up to this. Except I would say get rid of the required
> off time. Go 24 hours if that's what you want.
>
> With 24 hours total the exact start time doesn't matter either as far as
>> propagation- it covers a full day.
>>
>
> 0000Z to 2359Z . That should make Sunday more interesting - it will be the
> first opportunity for significant high band propagation, and there would be
> only one night-time opportunity.
>
> I'm sure the average qso speed in SS has gone up over the years- computer
>> logging/etc, plus the exchange used to be longer. So it makes sense to make
>> the whole thing shorter.
>>
>
> That is absolutely true. I have listened to recordings from the 1970's.
> Much slower. That was the way to pick up the hoards of newly-licensed
> General's who could barely do 13 WPM.
>
> Yes, records get messed up. But they already get messed up every time a
>> new section is added.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> If SS is shortened, I could even warm up to grandfathering the old records
> and starting new records.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|