[CCF] CQWW Contest rule changes, zero points QSO's, etc.

[jukka.klemola@nokia.com]

Jos jossakin hiukan jutellaan SAC säännöistä, tiedoksi että kaikille eivät kelpaa edes CQWW säännöt.
Näitä riittää maailman sivu.

Tämä on yksi mielenkiintoisimmista joka ajaisi siihen että lokaattorisysteemi tulisi standardiksi HF kisoissakin.
Joillakin - myös minulla - moinen olisi pieni kulttuurishokki.

CQWW CW osan paikka on aika usein USA:n suurimman perhejuhlan aikaan. Jotkut haluavat sen ajankohdankin siirtämistä.


73
jukka


>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
>[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ext 
>N4XM Paul D. Schrader
>Sent: 02 December, 2005 21:11
>To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Contest rule changes, zero points 
>QSO's, etc.
>
>I have had to read so much of this stuff, I finally am driven 
>to have MY say.
>
>First, as a long time contester, I have learned that the rules 
>are the same for everyone.
>There is some advantage for certain locations.  The ability to 
>compete in a given location is accomplished by doing the best 
>type of operating, etc. within the rules.
>THE rules don't
>matter, except perhaps as location related.  In most contests 
>the 'EAST COAST"
>has an advantage for several reasons; if you didn't like it 
>you could always move there.
>
>Second,  in the "old days" US stations were STRONGLY 
>discouraged from calling CQ as it cluttered the bands in such 
>a manner that the DX was hard to hear.
>Perhaps if it
>were a rule that CQing was not allowed in the USA, the zero 
>point QSO's would also decrease immensely and ALL would have 
>MORE FUN.  I know I would certainly hear better and the "EAST 
>COAST" advantage would also be reduced slightly.
>
>Third,  instead of complaining about zero point QSO's, realize 
>that it is the operating method you have chosen (CQing), 
>rather than the rules that is causing a large number
>(most) of them.  The other CQing stations are also having 
>additional zero point QSO's.
>
>Fourth, I am not proposing any rule changes myself, but if I 
>were they would be:
>
>1)  No USA CQing allowed.
>
>2)  A SMOOTH GRADUATED multiplier for the total score based on 
>station location.
>This needs some effort to determine and perhaps would need to 
>be determined slightly differently each year.  It MIGHT 
>consist of two components-a pre contest component and an after 
>contest component.
>
>Examples  W1	 Score Multiplier of 1.0
>                W2 	 Score Multiplier of 1.02
>	    W4    Score Multiplier (determined by Longitude and 
>Latitude) of
>1.03-1.30
>	    W5    Score multiplier (determined by Longitude and 
>Latitude) of
>1.20-1.50
>	    W6    Score multiplier 2.0
>	    W7    Score multiplier 1.9-2.2
>	    W9    Score multiplier (determined by Longitude and 
>Latitude) of
>1.20-1.60
>
>                An after contest location adjustment of no 
>more than an additional 1.10 X,
>                determined by a group of ??????.  (1.0-1.10)  
>Could/should vary by location.
>
>	    Perhaps this should be a "by band"  multiplier 
>system that is by location
>                and by band..
>
>
>One more comment.  We don't want to encourage more "local" 
>contacts in a DX contest by making them have a point value.  I 
>remind you of the old time rule in the ARRL CW DX Contest that 
>only allowed 6 QSO's with each DX country on each band (to 
>reduce the local interference); and this was with a 96 hour contest!
>
>Perhaps 1) should be considered?
>
>Comments?
>
>73
>
>Paul N4XM (ex W4BCV, WA6HQR)	
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>