Good points Zack... in addition I would ask "how many people commenting on
this new technology have actually used the existing online scoreboard by
W1VE?"
If you haven't, your comments about real-time internet participation are not
based on any actual experience. It's time to log on to www.getscores.org
You contest software already supports this technology. There's a contest
running right now, CQWW RTTY WPX. Log on. Look around. Give it a try.
Having some time to read reactions about the new Rookie Roundup contest, the
only negative thing that crossed my mind would be the proportion of
"Rookies" vs. "The rest of us". In other words, if there are 100 contesters
to every 2 rookies, imagine the pileups for anyone signing /ROK on their
callsign. They might as well be a P5.
In that regard, the rookies could become overwhelmed with the pileups, kind
of like baptism by fire I guess. In addition the other stations might
quickly loose interest.
So... is this even an issue? If so, what are some ideas to "spread the load"
of contacts around all participants?
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zack Widup" <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
To: "CQ Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rookie Contest
I see no reason not to experiment with new contests with new rules.
Remember when the Sprints first came out?
I am curious how many on this reflector who have been commenting on
the rules for the Rookie Roundup will actually participate in it. I
will probably forego the Phone and RTTY weekends but may get in on the
CW part of the contest (just to be nostalgic about the old Novice
Roundup).
:-)
73, Zack W9SZ
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Edward Swynar <gswynar@durham.net> wrote:
> Interesting points, all...
>
> My personal observation on all this...? If the Ham population roughly
> follows general demographics, here in Canada some 70+% of us have
> computers,
> or access to the internet. That means that about 30% still do not, and go
> about life "...the old fashioned way", i.e. communicating via the
> telephone,
> paying bills in person or via snail-mail, etc.
>
> To creat a system---any system---whereby access is "exclusionary" is
> wrong.
> For maximum success & impact, one must appeal to the lowest common
> denominator---always.
>
> Can you just imagine the howls that would arise if they held an election
> someplace, & said that only votes cast via computer would be eligible...?
> That would be elitist AND exclusuionary, both, and no different than
> excluding Ham radio contest entries via the traditional "..paper route."
>
> ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
>
>
> *********************************
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nate Bargmann" <n0nb@n0nb.us>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 7:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rookie Contest
>
>
>> * On 2010 13 Feb 21:48 -0600, Idle-Tyme wrote:
>> > I've been cob=ntesting for since 75,
>> >
>> > and the last years WI QSO Party was my first entry using a computer to
>> > log and submit my entry.
>>
>> And I've been using a computer logger of some sort for every contesting
>> event ever since my second Field Day participation in 1987. What's
>> your point?
>>
>> > Now here is someone that has been contesting for a LONG time and with
>> > that rule, i would have been disqyualified, for it took me a LOT longer
>> > to figure out how to make the cabrillo log , and send it to the correct
>> > location.
>>
>> We should not straight-jacket the new contest based on our veteran
>> issues. I say that we should allow this contest to evolve based on the
>> feedback received from the participants and those who found it
>> difficult to participate. My guess is that some changes will be made
>> before the second running of this event. If the submission deadline
>> proves to be too short, it will be lengthened. If Internet logging
>> proves too ornerous, it will be modified, and so on. I recognize that
>> this is an event that is not aimed at me, so what I want in a contest
>> isn't important here.
>>
>> Let's allow the hams this event is designed for determine if the rules
>> and format are appropriate for their event. If and when requested, we
>> can provide our feedback as well, but I'm optimistic enough to not
>> pronounce it DOA before it ever has a chance.
>>
>> 73, de Nate >>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
>> possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
>>
>> Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
|