CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Rules off the table ?

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rules off the table ?
From: KI9A@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:23:57 -0500 (EST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I agree. That's why I have pretty much lost all interest in this contest.  
For many years, I'd get on, with my low tribander, dipoles, and 500 watts, 
and  have a blast Saturday, into Sunday AM. Then, it became more like a 
severe  beating. I would look outside, at a 60-70 degree day, and think "what 
the 
hell  am I in here, when I could be out riding my motorcycle", or most 
anything  else.
 
Yeah, tradition. I get it, and, respect it. Been a ham for 36 years. Not a  
new ticket holder. But, in order for this to not only expand, but, at 
minimum,  MAINTAIN, I think we need to look at rule changes. 
 
Dont even tell me "well, op the NAQP's", because that's a WHOLE different  
animal. You pretty much one shot, limited time per band, to make Q's, and 
mults.  If you were to allow Q's on each band, or "split logs", that would no 
doubt help  the Sunday issue.
 
Look, guys with big stations, who have a lot of skin in the game, will sit  
and squeeze out every last Q, no matter how slow. But, guys like me, with  
regular stations, who enjoy contests, are the ones you need to satisfy, in 
order  to keep available stations on the air, so the big guys can keep on 
keeping  on.
 
You either change with the times, are you die with the times.
 
73 de Chuck KI9A
 
 
 
In a message dated 2/5/2013 12:46:53 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
n6win73@gmail.com writes:

I will  also say it... SS on Sunday is BORING. Yes, maybe at age 35 I should
find  something else to let my computer gaming/instant gratification self  
do
instead of complain about it. Don't change it for the  traditionalists...
but maybe allow something to change because eventually  when my senior hobby
members are QRT guys like N6MJ, KL9A, myself, etc.  will have worked each
other by Saturday afternoon and wonder why we're  still carrying the torch
on this one.

73,

Tim /  N6WIN.
http://www.n6win.com

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Pete  Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com> 
wrote:

> Hi Joe - try  operating SO1R (no packet) on SS Sunday if you were on the
> previous  evening - it defines boring, because there is almost nobody to
> work.  The difference between #1 and #10 is at most 50 QSOs.
>
> 73, Pete  N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>  http://reversebeacon.net,
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
>  For spots, please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster  node.
>
> On 2/4/2013 4:33 PM, Joe wrote:
>
>> I  missed something,
>>
>> Where did someone say it was  boring?
>>
>> I do not remember reading where someone said  it was boring.
>>
>> if this was stated,  what was the  reason for the thought of it being
>> boring?
>>
>>  Joe WB9SBD
>> Sig
>> The Original Rolling Ball  Clock
>> Idle Tyme
>> Idle-Tyme.com
>>  http://www.idle-tyme.com
>> On 2/4/2013 1:02 PM, Edward Sawyer  wrote:
>>
>>> I have never been a fan of SS so I don't  have a dog in the fight on
>>> whether
>>> the rules  get changed or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> However,  it is pretty amusing to hear how many people want to "game the
>>>  system" with new, fresh, call signs to alleviate the Sunday doldrums  
but
>>> then have others defend yearly how great a contest it  is.  Can anyone
>>> else
>>> mention a WRTC  eligible contest that is so boring that this topic would
>>>  even
>>> get  started?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a reason why  the SS contests, both modes, are the laggards of
>>>  the
>>> unbelievable log submission growth that virtually every  other major
>>> contest
>>> has experienced.  I  am glad the ones that love it, love it. Good for
>>>  them.
>>> The ones playing games with call signs should either  accept what it is 
or
>>> find a different contest where such  gimmicks (just to add fun and 
relieve
>>> boredom) are not  necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sure others  will disagree.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed   N1UR
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>> 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<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>>
>  ______________________________**_________________
> 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

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

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