Nothing is stopping anyone, but nearly everyone likes to at least see their
name (call) in the lights after it's all over. We don't like being treated
like an outcast for showing up under a new ID, having a good time, and
making things more interesting for everyone else. We like our efforts to count
for our contest clubs.
Big clubs have used operators at different locations, with rigs not used
by another operator during the contest. Dropping the current rules (3.3 and
3.5) would just make things simpler while letting one remain eligible to
submit a score, and not require making arrangements with another station owner
or spending time driving between stations.
When the median CW SS operator has been around for 40 years (my guess,
which may be low), it is long past basing the future of SS, especially the CW
SS, solely on the ability to recruit new participants.
73 - Jim K8MR
In a message dated 2/10/2013 7:40:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
w0mu@w0mu.com writes:
Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this now. Who cares if you are
not sending in a log. The big clubs have been doing this legally for a
long time. They just bring over an new transceiver and away they go.
This idea does not really bring anyone new into the mix. It is the same
people with new calls.
How many calls can one use, 2, 3, 4, 5? Does this number continue to
grow as there are less and less participants?
Mike W0MU
On 2/10/2013 2:12 PM, Jimk8mr@aol.com wrote:
> Let's get back to the simple suggestion most recently made by K2AV (with
my
> enthusiastic second):
>
> Simply give people the reasonable opportunity to use a second (or more)
> call later in the contest, with minimal limits to prevent manufactured
contact
> abuse (A problem more in theory than in practice. See the CQ contests
> where multiple calls are permitted). Forbidding the use of a previous
call
> after use of a new one begins would be sufficient.
>
> No need to establish new categories to do so. Some side bet type of
> action without involving the ARRL Contest Desk is fine, but not
necessary. I've
> had a competition (pretty much with myself) over the years to see if the
sum
> of my four scores (from separate physical locations) will beat the score
> of the overall high scorer. Some years I win, some years I don't.
>
> SS, especially the CW SS, is presented as an endurance contest where one
> struggles to scrape out every last possible qso on Sunday. I consider
this a
> bug, not a feature, of SS. But the contest is still sufficiently popular
> that being a new station in the later hours makes it into a rate
contest.
> That combined with the challenge of working a clean sweep (or close to
it) in
> a relatively few hours makes Sunday SS with a fresh call a lot of fun.
>
> All this will take is for the ARRL to drop General Rules 3.3 and 3.5.
>
>
> 73 - Jim K8MR
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/10/2013 1:50:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> n4zr@contesting.com writes:
>
> No, but there *might* be a correlation if limited-time competition
> categories were offered, perhaps focused on Sunday operating periods. A
> "6-hour Sunday" class might add some activity in the dead zone,
> particularly as the age of SS participants continues to rise.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
>
>
>
> On 2/9/2013 8:59 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>> We seemed to have gotten well off the original topic which was a
>> substantial drop in participation in the contest and what things we
>> could do to get more people to participate.
>>
>> Sunday afternoon, lack of rate was mentioned as reason that
>> discouraged some.
>>
>> I am not sure if there is any correlation between changing the length
>> of the contest and increasing participation.
>>
>> Mike W0MU
>>
>
>
>>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|