[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules

To: <john@kk9a.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposed contest rules
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>
Reply-to: wc1m73@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 14:10:53 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
K5ZD wrote:

> Is it time to create this concept for radio contesting?  If we do it
right, the
> decision competitor/participant will be completely a decision of the
> when they operate and submit their entry.  This would not change the game
> over the air for anyone.

This doesn't concern the recent rule change drafts, so I'll throw in my
answer to Randy's question:

I think Randy's strongest argument is that a long list of complex rules may
put off potential participants to the point of not getting on the air. I
like the idea of trying to simplify and relax the rules to encourage as much
participation as possible.

But I don't like sending the message that the rules don't matter as much if
you're not competing for a top score. I'm also concerned about conditioning
less-serious ops to a set of less stringent rules. Ideally, we want to
encourage those ops to try to up their game to compete with the "big boys",
and they need to compete under the same rules to do so.

Further, I think two sets of rules could lead to all sorts of problems
defining which rules apply to "competitors" and which rules apply to
"participants". And we're not going to be able to loosen certain rules. For
example, participants may have to comply with the "log must match what was
sent/received" in order not to mess up the logs of competitors and other

And then there's the problem of the club competition. The big clubs take
this competition very seriously, but most of their members fall into the
participant class.

As long as we have Unassisted and Assisted categories, I'm not sure there's
a need for two more sets of rules. Change the name of Assisted to Unlimited,
like ARRL did, and let people do whatever they want with technology during
the contest.

Seems to me that recording is one of the issues driving the idea of having
two different classes. But that problem could be solved by saying that if
your score falls into the top five (or three or 10) positions, you have to
supply a recording on request. If you're asked for the recording and you
don't supply it, a penalty will be assessed that ensures you'll not be
included in the listing of top scores.

 73, Dick WC1M

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>