I like that idea -- keeping it within current contest rules. However,
people might
complain about having to sign a number after call. It's a way of getting
the team
ID the log. Another way would be to indicate your team id in the CQ, and
simply
have another node in the cabrillo file indicating your team affiliation.
"TEST de 123 W1VE TEST"
A real-time score site could show the top teams (with an id-to-name
translation), and the team results calculated from
final cabrillo files.
73, Gerry W1VE
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whatever the team theme/rules, all on-the-air behavior and all submitted
> QSO data must to comply with the sponsor's contest rules for the exchange
> and so forth. Messing up the sponsor's processes would be a Bad Thing and
> very unwelcome.
>
> Perhaps a self-assigned identifier following the call that complies with
> all regulations about prefixes would serve to identify the team without
> corrupting the sponsor's scoring and checking process. For example, maybe
> add /T### that would be ignored by the prefix-parsing software in favor of
> the initial prefix (kind of like /P is ignored). ### would be a
> three-digit team ID, maybe.
>
> Scoring could be done on a post-processing basis from the verified logs
> but the sponsor would not be responsible for judging the CWAC (contest
> within a contest).
>
> If the operation violates some criteria such as the
> all-equipment-within-a-certain-radius
> rule, logs should be submitted as checklogs.
>
>
> > What a strategy fest this would be!
>
> Exactly. Like adding another dimension to the chess board.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
>
> On 12/6/2013 8:41 AM, Gerry Hull wrote:
>
>> Like the theme, Ward...
>>
>> How about this as an outside-the-box simple example of a new contest:
>>
>> -Form inter-continental virtual teams
>> -intra-team QSOs count zero points
>> -rest of scoring matches a current contest type (like Zn/Cty)
>> -Exchange would include a team acronym to conform to rules.
>>
>> What a strategy fest this would be! First, finding the proper
>> team members on each continent; which team combinations
>> would work best based on propagation, etc. Each continent
>> has it's own advantages based on TOD and population centers;
>>
>> This could work well if teams were made up of stations in the same
>> category.
>>
>> Food for thought.
>>
>> 73, Gerry W1VE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil@gmail.com <mailto:
>> hwardsil@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Opening up the team competition to be more than just combining
>> scores would be very interesting. The software to allow multiple
>> stations to interact as a "distributed multi-multi" already
>> exists. Remote multi-operator stations are already
>> straightforward, if not easy, as the K4VV team has demonstrated.
>> So the idea of multiple operators using multiple stations is
>> certainly do-able, although with the demise of the WW X-treme
>> category, such operation does not have a "home" in any major
>> contest at the moment.
>>
>> Here are some possible team scenarios:
>>
>> 1) Multiple operators using one station via remote links, ala K4VV.
>> 2) Multiple independent stations networked together for logging,
>> ala many IARU HQ operations
>> 3) Multiple stations with a single operator using remote control
>> and networked together
>> 3a) All stations are single-band throughout the contest
>> 3b) All stations are multi-band but the team is limited to one
>> signal per band
>> 3c) Combination of single- and multi-band stations plus
>> multiplier stations
>> 4) Receive-only stations added in "partner mode" over the network
>> to support transmitting station
>>
>> I'm sure this inventive audience will think of many more ways to
>> combine multiple operators and multiple stations :-) Deciding on
>> strategies would be challenging - do you optimize by station
>> capability, by operator capability, how do you allocate time slots
>> between operators and stations, etc etc etc. I mean, really,
>> we've been playing essentially the same game for upwards of 80
>> years. Surely there are other useful ways of competing.
>>
>> On the second question - why don't we ask them? I completely
>> agree that what they come up with would be unlikely to look all
>> that familiar but it would probably be fun. As long as the
>> resulting activity advances radio know-how and operating skill,
>> why not?
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>
>> On 12/3/2013 11:00 AM, cq-contest-request@contesting.com
>> <mailto:cq-contest-request@contesting.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Or thinking of a team situation, what if you were in a team
>> of six, one on
>> >each continent, in say a 24 hour contest using traditional
>> scoring but you
>> >could only operate 4 hours each. Using instant messaging or
>> voice chat to
>> >co-ordinate your plans, what tactics would you employ? Would
>> that be fun
>> >to try? Who knows you may even make new friends.
>> >
>> > (snip)
>> >
>> >Finally as someone else said how would a bunch of gamers
>> design a radio
>> >contest? I suspect quite differently to what we have now.
>> >
>> >73
>> >Mark ZL3AB
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
|