Exactly - it's hard to get a sponsor to do anything new (and for good
reason). That's why I made the oblique reference to someone other than the
sponsor doing it. The sponsor provides just a contest definition and
adjudicated score reports. Anyone else can crunch the numbers and come up
with new evaluation criteria. If someone does it well enough to generate
interest, the sponsor may eventually incorporate new categories but it isn't
necessary.
But lest I be perceived as advocating changes to existing rules and
categories - good heavens, no! I have always said that full-time SOAB is the
sine qua non of contesting and I stick to my guns on that even though I've
only occasionally tried it. Let the athletes among us run 48 hour DX
contests, 26 mile marathons, iron-man triathlons and double centuries. Make
contesting it a true citizen's race by publishing 24 or 12 or 36 hour
standings. At least for starters, this can be done by an upstart,
independent of the sponsor.
/Rick
On 2/24/07, Randy Thompson <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
>
> I think the popular vote would be for off times. However, it makes a
> little harder for the log checking algorithm to deal with.
>
> At least it seems like people are thinking. Question is whether a contest
> sponsor would consider it!
>
> R
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Rick Tavan N6XI [mailto:rtavan@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:39 AM
> *To:* Randy Thompson
> *Subject:* Re: Time Limit Categories - Let's Just Do It!
>
> Good point, Randy. I still think I prefer off times. They are effective in
> contests that have them. But you could certainly do it either way.
>
> /Rick
>
> On 2/24/07, Randy Thompson <k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > Thanks for joining the discussion.
> >
> > I avoided including off times because that causes people to start
> > managing their time on the radio. One of the goals that any limited time
> > category should have is that it not encourage people to stay away from the
> > radio.
> >
> > In my proposal, once you start you are running. You are actually
> > encouraged to operate as much as you can in the first 12 or 24 hours (and
> > beyond!).
> >
> > The idea here is to create some new fun competitions (races) without
> > upsetting the larger contest.
> >
> > Randy, K5ZD
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Rick Tavan N6XI [mailto:rtavan@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:38 PM
> > *To:* Randy Thompson
> > *Cc:* cq-contest@contesting.com
> > *Subject:* Time Limit Categories - Let's Just Do It!
> >
> > Randy K5ZD recently proposed 12 and 24 hour SOAB categories, but I fear
> > his suggestion falls short of the objective of creating a new kind of
> > competition. 48 hours is hard because taking breaks costs points. SOAB48 is
> > really a 48 hour sprint (not Sprint). His proposed 12 or 24 hour categories
> > are still sprints, only shorter. What people keep clamoring for is the
> > ability to be competitive and still take some breaks for biological,
> > professional or social needs. They also enjoy the strategic angles of
> > planning breaks. It seems to me that any new category below SOAB48 should
> > allow for breaks.
> >
> > When I read score reports, the first thing I do is compare my score with
> > the scores of others who put in similar numbers of hours. If everyone who
> > beat me plus many who scored lower put in more hours than I did, then I am
> > very satisfied. I "won" my personal battle to improve my operating skills.
> > It is easy to do this in my own geographic region, more difficult to compare
> > nationally or internationally. I would like to see subset score listings of
> > all entrants at or below 12, 24 or 36 hours but this is beyond the
> > flexibility of even the excellent ARRL online score reporting facility. It
> > would be even better to have Top Ten boxes for a few levels of operating
> > time.
> >
> > The biggest obstacle to establishing new categories is sponsor
> > resistance to change, often in the guise of page limits. But an external
> > party could introduce contests-within-contests (see recent N0AX discussion
> > of this subject) that separately report and rank SOAB entrants based on
> > their total operating time. One could do this without sponsor effort or even
> > cooperation if necessary. If the US Radiosport Federation (USRF) were to
> > publish such separate boxes and listings in its online magazine and if
> > people started favoring its fuller reporting and opportunities for
> > recognition, then perhaps the sponsors would do something themselves. By the
> > way, N6OP proposed something like this back in the early 80's, the "Sane
> > Contest OPerating Experience" or SCOPE competition.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > /Rick N6XI
> >
> >
> > On 2/24/07, Randy Thompson < k5zd@charter.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My suggestion:
> > >
> > > - Create 12 hour and 24 hour races
> > > - The 12 or 24 hours consist of a continuous period beginning with
> > > your
> > > first QSO (i.e., the clock starts with your first QSO)
> > > - There are no off times
> > > - You can operate the contest as much as you want. Your score is
> > > calculated
> > > by the log checker based on the first 12 and 24 hour marks
> > > - No preregistration or special marking of your log. ALL LOGS are
> > > included
> > > in the scoring/results
> > >
> > > Advantages:
> > > - Easy to administer
> > > - Everyone can play
> > > - A guy trying for a 12/24 hour win still has to compete with the full
> > > time
> > > competitors
> > > - Entrants may chose to stop operating when they reach their time
> > > limit, but
> > > they are not required to do so
> > >
> > > Disadvantages
> > > - Extra log checker burden
> > > - Extra page or two of results
> > > - Requires change of thinking (apparently difficult for many of us!)
> > >
> > > This would also make a simple contest within a contest to run if the
> > > main
> > > contest sponsor was not interested.
> > >
> > > Look forward to discussion on a "new" idea.
> > >
> > > Randy, K5ZD
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> "In days of old, when ops were bold, and sidebands not invented,
> The word would pass, by pounding brass, and all were well contented."
>
>
--
"In days of old, when ops were bold, and sidebands not invented,
The word would pass, by pounding brass, and all were well contented."
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|