Bob,
This category would not compete with the traditional category, and it
would not matter whether the winning score is double that of the other
category.
If I were operating as a traditional single operator, had 4 million
points in a contest and that was the winning score for that category, I
would not care whether this new category had 4.5M or 10M points. To
ensure there was less likelihood of comparison, I would make it so the
points were different by a significant margin.
As far as who would tweak the point multiplier, it would be the contest
committees. All it would take is a few relatively equal operators, with
different variations among them - using Skimmer or not, using antennas
with 10dbi gain versus a tribander versus dipoles, etc. to come up with
something that was reasonable over a few years. I think it could be
pre-calculated to be close based on knowledge that a lot of folks have
from having entered using different variations of hardware and software.
The goal would be to create a category where everyone thought they would
have a chance to win if they performed exceptionally with a little luck
from propagation at their location.
Obviously, in order to have a competition, there will be a difference in
scores but the idea would be that someone with 100W and a vertical could
perhaps compete with someone who had 1500W and monoband yagis.
At the moment perhaps unless there were no other entries, it would be
difficult for someone with 100W and a vertical to ever win even a
section award for their efforts. This would perhaps allow that same
person to finish top ten in the USA with a good effort.
I would suspect that a lot of guys with 1500W and monobanders would
enter the traditional category unless they wanted to use this category
to hone their skills before perhaps deciding to compete in the
traditional class.
It is just a thought I had, commonly used in golf where they either have
flights based on a qualifying score or allow golfers to enter using an
established handicap based on their ability to play the game.
It should help eliminate "How am I to compete with the guy who has 6
towers and stacked monobanders who is entering the same category as me."
I would think the multiplier for points should be set to provide some
amount of encouragement (even if small) for operators to want to improve
their skills, improve their station, etc. but not have the disparity
that currently exists. We would not want someone dominating the
category who decided the best way he could compete was operate with 50W
and a dipole and log by hand, when he had the capability of using 100W
and a tribander.
I truly think this would bring some people out of the woodwork. As to
enforcement, there are so many factors that cannot be enforced, we just
would have to trust people to declare what options were used.
Again, to use golf as an example, about 90% of all rules infractions are
called by the player on himself - a Gentleman's Game..
Stan, K5GO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@pclink.com>
To: <stan@aqity.org>; "Jim Preston" <jpreston1@cox.net>;
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge - New Category?
> That's an interesting idea Stan. But I see one fly in the ointment...
>
> You said "I believe it would attract more people. The multiplier
> factors could be tweaked in a couple of years to be as fair as
> possible."
>
> But I question who is going to "tweak" the multiplier factors and to
> what end? Is it to tweak them so this new category will out-score all
> the other classes or consistently suppress them into second-class
> finishes?
>
> Heh heh... I guess I'm just primed for this kind of discussion. This
> morning I've been reading too much 20th century history about the
> regional conflicts of Germany, Poland, and the Czechs!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_minority_in_the_Czech_Republic
>
> In any case, I applaud you for a suggesting a new approach (at least I
> haven't read it here before).
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stan Stockton" <k5go@cox.net>
> To: "Jim Preston" <jpreston1@cox.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:27 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge - New Category?
>
>
>> Following is an idea that would perhaps please more people:
>>
>> To address the discussions about whether it is fair that this
>> operator can afford two radios versus only one for someone else,
>> whether this one has mastered the ability to use two radios or not,
>> whether this operator has Yagi antennas versus dipoles for another,
>> whether you send with a straight key or computer, use paper and
>> pencil to log, are on the East Coast versus the Midwest, versus the
>> West Coast, whether you are able to copy code on your own or want to
>> use a code reader, etc how about creating one more category for
>> those who want to compete with multipliers based on everything that
>> can be imagined.
>>
>> For those who want to compete in this category, it will be like
>> playing in a golf tournament where handicaps are allowed. If you had
>> a 18 handicap and were to shoot 85 you could say on most days that
>> you beat Tiger Woods.
>>
>> For illustration purposes only:
>>
>> One Radio - QSO Points times 100%
>> SO2R - QSO Points times 80%
>> Various Levels of ERP by band with different multipliers for
>> different levels of ERP
>> CW Sent manually - 100%
>> CW Sent with computer - 90%
>> Code copied by operator - 100%
>> Code copied by code reader - 90%
>> Packet Spots - 85%
>> Skimmer Spots - 70%
>> No help by anyone or anything to spot stations - 100%
>>
>> Etc, etc. With this format and most everything that can be imagined
>> for which to handicap the effort, everyone who wanted to compete in
>> this category could do so feeling it was somewhat of a level playing
>> field. Perhaps this would become the most popular category of entry -
>> Certificates to the top 50 in the country.
>>
>> Regardless, the current most popular category of entry could be left
>> for the current majority, who want to compete in the traditional way.
>>
>> There are those who would never enter a golf tournament where
>> handicaps were factored and others who would only enter if they were.
>> This would give more options for those who want something different
>> from what we have now and only be one more category.
>>
>> I believe it would attract more people. The multiplier factors could
>> be tweaked in a couple of years to be as fair as possible.
>>
>> Stan, K5GO
>>
>>
>> ---- Jim Preston <jpreston1@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Stan Stockton wrote:
>>> > K0RC Wrote
>>>
>>> snip...
>>>
>>> > 1. Single operators are to copy all Morse code signals with their
>>> > own
>>> > ears.
>>> >
>>> > Translation must be directly from Morse code audio to written or
>>> > typed
>>> > text by the single operator using the single operator's human
>>> > brain for
>>> > translation. A code reader or readers or any other method or
>>> > means that
>>> > may be devised to translate Morse Code into text or other visual
>>> > or
>>> > audio translation is not allowed.
>>>
>>> snip...
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Stan, K5GO
>>>
>>> To which should be added:
>>>
>>> 1.1 Sending of Morse code shall be done completely by hand using a
>>> hand-key, or at most a "bug". The use of a memory keyer or computer
>>> generated cw puts the operator in the Assisted class.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Why is it that some are opposed to the use of code readers, but not
>>> code
>>> senders? Isn't the ability to send code as important as the ability
>>> to
>>> copy it? For the record, I use computer generated cw, and I also use
>>> a
>>> code reader when needed (over about 30 wpm).
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Jim N6VH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1509 -
> Release Date: 6/19/2008 8:00 AM
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|