One last try.

[Hans Brakob K0HB]

First time it went with no text.  Next time, it was all muddled into one paragraph!

Following is a copy of a letter I sent to CAC for comment and discussion.
Contact your CAC rep with your ideas, comments.

----------------  COPY  -------------


March 4, 1993
..
..
From:	Hans Brakob, K0HB, Dakota CAC rep
To:	Contest Advisory Committee
..
Subj:	"24-hour" category in ARRL DX contest
..
Those of you who are plugged into Treys' reflector on Internet are aware of the ongoing 
discussion (debate?) regarding the perennial proposals for a "reduced length" (24 hour) 
category of SO competition in the ARRL DX contest.  This letter is intended to outline 
the predominate schools of thought that I've seen, and to foster further discussion by the 
CAC.
..
The current discussion boils down to basically 4 camps.
..
#1 - "It ain't broke.  Let's not fix it."    This camp is not in favor of any change, other 
perhaps institution of a PIN or mug program as in SweepStakes.  Not surprisingly, a lot of 
the folks who have "publicly" taken this stand are also commonly also found in the "top 
10" box.  Frequently, their stated reason for opposition to a "short" category is a feeling 
it will detract from the prestige of the winners in the current 48-hour format.
..
#2 - "Let's shorten the contest to 36 (or 24) hours."  While the discussion seems to have 
been started by a statement similar to this, I see no remaining support for this idea.  It 
did, however, seem to bring individuals out of the closet who are in camps #3 and #4 
below.
..
#3 - "Lets' add a contiguous 24-hour class."   (Contiguous is a key word here.)  This 
group also consists largely of historically successful contesters.  In a sense it seems that 
some of these folks might lean toward "no change", but would like to see more 
participation.  Thus their position tends toward the conservative.  
..
Their support seems based on the idea that it may generate more activity from contesters 
who currently  participate casually, but can't devote a full 48 hours for endurance / 
family / job /  age reasons.  The feeling is that this casual group could be lured into 
greater participation by a shorter format.  (48 hours is too much for these wimps, but they 
maybe could handle a strenous 24 hours.)  
..
There has been concern voiced that some of the current 48-hour "not quite top-10" 
competion would drop back into this category in order to "get their name in the box".  
Some stated  reasons for the sentiment for "contiguous" is a concern that the operators 
in this class would tend to "skim" during selected high-rate hours, and that "endurance" 
should be a significant ingredient in a "good" contester.
..
#4 - "Lets' add a non-contiguous 24-hour class."   This camp is in favor of a "pick your 
own hours" 24-hour category, S/O only.  The reasoning is that it might draw some of the 
"noodlers" (domestic and DX) into more serious competition, thus increasing targets for 
both sides of the contest.  They favor not dictating exact hours of operation, but 
enforcing at least two off-periods of 6-hours minimum duration.  (Other off-time could be 
taken, but at least these two periods must be observed.)  This would effectively spread 
these folks across at least 36 hours of the contest, and most likely across the entire 48 
hours as a group.
..
Arguments by this group against "contiguous" are:  
..
	1)  It limits strategic thinking.  The only decision that can be made is choice of 
band.
..
	2)  24-hours straight will be seen as still too tough, and will result in a very 
limited participation.
..
How would I vote?  I would be most in favor of #4, perhaps including a "PINS" program 
as in SS.  I find that I currently am only a casual participant in both ARRL and CQ DX 
contests.   A primary reason is because I simply can't devote 48 hours for endurance 
reasons, even if I could block out the whole weekend away from other commitments.  
..
If there were a 24-hour category, I can imagine a lot of folks planning a schedule similar 
to the following:
..
00-0800 Sat:		Operate
08-1400 Sat:		Sleep
14-2000 Sat:		Breakfast with family.  Errands and "honey-do's"
20-2400 Sat:		Operate.
00-0800 Sun		Operate.
08-1400 Sun:		Sleep
14-1800 Sun:		Church and lunch with family.
18-2200 Sun:		Operate.
..
This leaves flexibility at several points to adjust my strategy to take advantage of a hot 
band, sleep late, run an errand, get done early, or whatever.
..
To the "real" contesters, the above schedule would be excessively wimpy, but bear in 
mind that the reason is to draw more QSO's.  The target population is not current serious 
folks, but those who now do not participate.   A lot of current "noodlers" would put in a 
good effort on a schedule like this, giving more targets to the "real" (48 hour) contesters, 
spread out instead of "lumped" in a contiguous time frame.  
..
I really don't believe the idea that this category diminishes the prestige of the awards 
earned by the "full run" folks, just as the folks who win the "5K fun-run" segment do not 
diminish the higher prestige of those who seriously compete in the 10K segment of a 
running event.  
..
Further, I think a lot of younger folks who start in the 24-hour class, will "get bitten by 
the bug" and become serious 48-hour players in a couple of years.
..
As a point of comparison, I am madly in love with SS, where I usually run three 8-hour 
segments, broken by two 3 hour off-times.  Instead of 100-150 contacts over two 
weekends, I usually give 1500-2000 contacts over 2 weekends in SS.  No, I never make 
the top-ten, but I can always convince myself that I can win my section or even division. 
 (Usually only come in at #3 or #4, but that's another story.)  On the other hand, at age 
52 there is no chance to "be somebody" in a 48-hour contest, so I don't make any kind 
of serious effort.
..