What's not to like about this idea?
I love it.
Send the idea to every member of the ARRL CAC.
73, Hans, K0HB
On Friday, February 1, 2013, wrote:
> Thanks to K2AV for writing this for me.
>
> For years I've been doing SOMS - Single Op, Multi Station - in the CW SS.
> That contest becomes really fun when the rate goes *UP* as the contest goes
> on.
>
> Last year, needing another serious single operator entry for WRTC ranking,
> I did a traditional one station effort from AC8E. I won the Great Lakes
> Division, and was bored out of my mind after the first 14 hours or so.
>
> I don't understand the ARRL's phobia about the use of more than one call
> per transmitter or QTH (family stations exempted). It's not going to
> prevent
> manufactured contacts - somebody doing that simply would not send in a log
> for that call(s).
>
> CQ doesn't share the phobia, and I like it. In the recent CQ 160 contest I
> started over the second night as W3USA, and was running 120 hours with low
> power. It was a lot more fun than tuning around trying to keep the rate
> above 40. I hope nobody I worked twice minded. (I also got back on for the
> last hour Sunday afternoon as K8MR, for another 40 or so QSOs. But I
> would not
> object to the concept of forbidding this).
>
> I would suggest a couple of variations on what K2AV suggested. I don't see
> a need to limit an operator to 24 hours among the various calls. If he is
> still going strong at hour 24 at 0200z Monday, let him go. I don't see the
> need to limit it to two calls. And I don't see need for an off time when
> switching calls, But these are minor points.
>
> I sense that there are lots of people who by the end of SS (or other
> contests) who know they aren't going to win and don't care. But they would
> have
> a lot of fun as "fresh meat". And the rest of us contest carnivores would
> be
> delighted to take what they offer.
>
>
> 73 - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/1/2013 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> olinger@bellsouth.net <javascript:;> writes:
>
> Reads like, you can do anything, except the rules are off the table, so
> basically you are talking about people selling the Sweepstakes. Clubs
> will
> for club competition. But individuals to other individuals? Folks do
> this
> word of mouth thing and that's how good things grow.
>
> But you take the rules entirely off the table and you hope the big clubs
> are in there. After that, you wanna pay money to advertise the SS on TV?
>
> The biggest individually self-limiting aspect the contest has is
> saturation. Work out the stations and slow way down, but this encourages
> "fresh meat" stations on Sunday that get a lot of attention. At PVRC we
> tell the guys that can only put in 5-6-7 hours to do it on Sunday, and
> run,
> not S&P, and forget about chasing mults on spots. If by increased
> participation you mean total QSO count, that strategy works.
>
> If someone could suggest a rule change, and this is partially allowed now,
> but is a mechanical nightmare, and that is starting over with a new call
> sign. If you change stations and use "unused" transmitters you can do it
> now. NCCC used it extensively at one time.
>
> You could ALLOW a second call sign to be used at the same station on the
> same equipment by the same operator. Once second call sign in use, log of
> first call sign used by that op is frozen and can't be used again in the
> contest. Either call sign could only be used once in the contest and
> cannot have overlapping start and finish times. Stop of one and start of
> the other must be separated by a legal off time (30 minutes currently)
> Think everything you need to enforce that is in the log. With that rule
> some of us in club competition would start Sunday morning with second call
> sign. The timing of the switch to maximize a club score would be a real
> science. A pair of logs from the same operator would be listed and scored
> separately, eligible for awards only separately. Separate log submission
> to the robot. The two logs combined subject to the 24 hour limit. It
> would sure change Sunday afternoon. Let the clubs worry about how they
> award their internal awards.
>
> Those who want to max out for top scores and awards just keep doing what
> they are doing. Just more call signs to work overall. "Double-signing"
> would be optional and up to the individual. Doesn't mess with records,
> other rules, just allows an option that might make Sundays fun.
>
> If you want to leave it to the operator whether they want to sleep or not,
> then just say that the log of one call in a pair must have all its "on"
> times entirely within the legal "off" times of the other, and all current
> rules for time and max still apply to each log separately. ARRL log
> scoring program handle that easily. Operators would restart logging
> program on the other call. Logging program coders would be asked to not
> support instant call flipping.
>
> The improvement in total score from an individual op's two logs would come
> not so much from lack of sleep as it would from making Sunday meaningful
> when you've operated hard on Saturday.
>
> That's a rule change that wouldn't mess with scoring, records, awards,
> etc,
> and would increase the total QSO count, especially on Sunday. Clubs
> would
> need to strategize. But they're deep into that already.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Sea stories at --------> http://K0HB.wordpress.com
Superstition trails ---> http://OldSlowHans.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|