Could it be that of the CQ contests, WPX might be viewed as a testing ground
for new contest features? After all, WPX had overlays, it was deemed fun, and
now CQWW has overlays.
There's been an awful lot of griping in some quarters about stations that don't
ID frequently enough. Could it be that someone wants to see how this kind of
rule might impact a contest?
Sure, we can debate the subject all we want on the reflectors; we probably
wouldn't reach a consensus in the community. The only way to find out whether
a rule will make the contest better will be to try it out.
If pileup management problems render the WPX less fun, then we argue for the
rule to go away next year.
--
Michael / N1EN
W0MU wrote:
> At J6M we tried to send our call every Qso. Sometimes that made the pileup
> worse, which for us was bad. So not signing our call every contact is a
> viable
> pileup technique for others. When we got spotted in Europe the pileups became
> so bad that we almost always had to move. So I guess we should ban spotting
> and anything else that causes an operator any issues right.................
>
> I will be eager to see the metrics on why this was the most pressing issue in
> the
> contest.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|