CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes
From: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
This was brought up at the contest forum.  It was no surprise when  K5ZD 
brought up the fact that the top finishing stations had very low NIL while  
the ones lower in the rankings had much higher NILs.  It was explained,  from 
what I gathered, the reduction in penalties would encourage those guys to  
participate.
 
Bill, I am in your camp.  3 points is not that high, especially when  the 
exchange is as simple as it is.  No need to copy the RST, and for 80%  of the 
stations the zone pops up for you.  All you have to do is copy the  call.  
Duh!  Dumbing down of the contest!
 
But, it is CQ's contest and they can run it anyway they want.
 
Bill K4XS
 
 
In a message dated 5/24/2013 12:39:39 A.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,  
btippett@alum.mit.edu writes:

I  noticed this from today' s The Daily DX:

>During the Contest forum  at Dayton last weekend CQ WW DX Contest
Director K5ZD, Randy Thompson, did  an interesting presentation on the
best contest in the world, the CQ World  Wide. He mentioned several
changes that will take place starting this year.  The busted QSO
penalty will change from the removal of three QSOs to the  removal one
(sic...
probably meant to be "of") two. In addition the CQ  WW Contest is working
on new DQ criteria for dirty signals (i.e. wide  signals, etc.). Full
details are
expected to be announced well before  the contests.

I'm surprised there's been no discussion of the busted  QSO penalty change. 
 Was
this the decision endorsed by the full  committee?  IMHO this is one of the
unique features of the CQ WW that  encourages logging accuracy.  Changing
the penalty from 3 QSOs to 2  may seem insignificant but it potentially
violates the integrity and  consistency of past records, which I feel should
not be done without  careful consideration and discussion.

I applaud the move to DQ based on  dirty signals.  With the advent of SDR
spectrum recordings, I hope  this can be enforced.

73,  Bill   W4ZV
_______________________________________________
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>