CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Reply-to: wn3vaw@verizon.net
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:22:36 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Why exchange it at all?  To make sure you got it right the first time, for
one thing.

Computer logging (which goes back more than 20 years, BTW) is not the issue
at hand.  If you want to discuss prefills from contacts made with the same
station worked on a different band, or Super Check Partial "suggestions", or
whatever... that's fine, but that's not the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is the suggestion that, because a few contesters do not
know how to use cut numbers (or don't care to know), the contest rules be
changed to simplify the exchange... to throw out the numbers in the first
place.

THAT is what is not broken.  THAT is what does not need fixing.

Let's not muddy the waters with other issues!

[... one wonders if someone with a twisted sense of humor, running a M/M
station, would dare to use different power levels on different bands... not
something I'd advocate, mind you, but wouldn't THAT throw the computer
logging off!  And it would be possible... someone running a full KW on 160
80 & 40, but only 500 W on 20 15 & 10 -- or pick your combination...]

73

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:42 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>

Snip

> The problem here is not the contest rules.  It is not
> the contest exchange.

Snip

> I reiterate:  It ain't broke.  Don't fix it.

It is broke!  It has been broken for over 20 years - since
computer logging became the norm.

CT, the first major contest logger, had no provision for
logging RST Sent as anything other than 59(9).  Since then,
the mindless exchange of 59(9) has become redundant.

Secondly, in ARRL DX, once you've had one QSO with a station,
the software knows, and pre-fills, the exchange.  In CQWW,
it knows the exchange once you enter a prefix.  So, why
exchange it again - or at all?

Yes, I know - "it's in the rules".  Many contesters, not
unreasonably, think the rules in some major contests are
long overdue for an update.

The simplest way to keep contesters honest, and avoid
mindless repetition, is to introduce serials where they
don't already exist.  Just think, they could even replace
RST.

If things never change, they will never get better.  Why
not recognise that logging software has changed contesting,
and update the rules to reflect 21st century reality?

I don't know of any loggers that can pre-fill serials,
even though most of them seem to get RST right.

73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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>