Skelton, Tom TSkelton at engineer.clemsonsc.NCR.COM
Wed May 12 17:20:00 EDT 1993

I 'm glad it was only the server.  I thought he was in a plane crash!
73,tom WB4IUX
From: hq.tgv.com!tgv.com!cq-contest-relay
To: cq-contest
Subject: w6ue CRASHED
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 1993 4:10AM

Hi all, W6UE crashed all day tue. lost ur mail, pse try agn.

>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com>  Thu May 13 04:27:58 1993
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 23:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: How about this?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9305050046.A7132-b100000 at world.std.com>

In the recent NCJ survey, there was a question about what could be done
to make contests more attractive.  And another asking how to encourage
new contesters.
My suggestion is to limit contests to 100 watts.  While not exactly
balancing the scales, it certainly would be an equalizer (hey, W1 and
big antennas will still win the DX contests).  But at least more people
could feel like they could play.
I also think it would help return contesting to "sport".  Right now,
the basic attribute to winning DX contest scores is the ability to press
F1 more than anyone else and get answers.  The art of moving around the
band, being opportunistic, actually using operating skill, are almost

Having done several 100 watt efforts in the past year, it was actually
fun again!  I could still get answers to CQ's (if I could find the right
spot) but success was really a function of taking advantage of 

Now you will argue that 100 watts will be impossible to enforce and people
will undoubtably cheat.  What can I say?  You're right, they will.
But in a perfect world, the goal of a contest should be to provide a
"fair" test of comparable skills.  I think limiting the participants to 
100 watts evens the playing field so that more people can play -- and

What do you think?

Randy, K5ZD

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list