Carribean trips still on??
John A. Ross, IV
wb2k at ritz.mordor.com
Fri Sep 22 08:32:24 EDT 1995
>With all the hurricane activity in the Carribean this season I haven't
>heard much about the status of CONTEST expeditions for the CQWW contests.
>Are we going to have an even lower number of mults available this season?
>
>Might be a good time to update the Contest DX-Pedition Registry...
>
>73,
>Gary K9GS
>
Hi to Gary (et al):
Thanks for bringing this up. With all the devastation that has occurred in
the Carribean this late summer, one would assume that some plans might have
changed. I have spoken to a few of the folks who had plans for affected
islands, and thus far the results can be summarized in a few words:
"Yeah...So what? Just means we have a bit more work to do!" It's quite a
testament to the hardiness and dedication of some of these folks (most
notably the V2 FRC gang going to Antigua!)
On the other hand there are a few hard-hit islands (ie VP2E) that we
haven't heard from in regards to any changes of plans. If anyone knows of
any status changes, by all means, please let me know.
Thanks to all who have passed along DX-Pedition Plans. This has worked out
quite well thus far. I've gotten nothing but positive comments!
73, John - WB2K
PS. Just realized, that although I've been updating the Contest
DX-Pedition Registry on a weekly basis, I've neglected to change the
"Last updated..." line on the header page. Sorry, I'll fix it asap!
Be assured, at any time, it reflects any adiitions/changes to travel plans
that have been received in the past week.
------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Ross, IV - WB2K / VE2TJA [Zone 2] (wb2k at ritz.mordor.com)
Summit, New Jersey
Contest DXpedition Registry ---------> http://www.mordor.com/wb2k
------------------------------------------------------------------
>From David Robbins KY1H <robbins at guid2.dnet.lmco.com> Fri Sep 22 11:48:37 1995
From: David Robbins KY1H <robbins at guid2.dnet.lmco.com> (David Robbins KY1H)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 06:48:37 EDT
Subject: uniques
Message-ID: <199509221035.GAA32590 at franklin.vf.mmc.com>
>Can I disagree?
you can, but i can disagree with you also.
>I think it would be great for the CQWW committee to come out next year and
>say: OK folks.. This year if you work a unique (however they define it)
>then you lose the QSO. Let the computers do their thing, spit out the
>results, and print em. Get the results out faster and the I bet not much
>changes from the present system but faster results.
uniques are a way of life in contests. they are the reward for multi-multis
that keep extra ops on the 'dead' bands scouring them for the last few
contacts that no one else can waste time on. all those ve's that we can
work during the day on 40/80/160m, they aren't contesting, they may only
make one contact in the contest because some m/m went and asked them. the
missionary in peru that you listen to for a half hour on 10m while he makes
a phone patch or chats with friends, then grab him just before he signs off.
the local novice who recognizes your call and gives you a 10m contact, then
goes back to whatever else it is non-contesters do on weekends. the guy
in the next town that loads up his 40m dipole to all of 5 watts on 160m
and can't be heard by anyone else. these are undoubtedly valid contacts,
they take time to find and make, it's not easy to find someone who will sit
and call cq-ve on 80m all day for 5 to 10 per hour. is this not contesting?
should it be discouraged?? some of these guys we do get to go to other
bands and make some more contacts, so other stations do benefit from our
efforts. the publicity we pass out on the dead bands looking for these
contacts is worth it for everyone. i can remember several times when we
chatted with a semi-rare multiplier on a 'dead' band and convinced them that
lots of contesters wanted them, so they qsy'ed to a better band and made
lots of others happy... if we hadn't been there looking for those unique
qso's most of these guys would have pulled the plug until their next sked.
so should they discourage valid contacts.... i think not!
73, Dave KY1H Robbins at guid2.dnet.lmco.com
>From Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp> Fri Sep 22 12:55:00 1995
From: Takao KUMAGAI <je1cka at dumpty.nal.go.jp> (Takao KUMAGAI)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 20:55:00 +0900
Subject: [cq-contest 8399] uniques
Message-ID: <199509221155.UAA13358 at dumpty.nal.go.jp>
Uniques? I do not care.
While we made 1st CQ WW PH as KH0AM in '90.
We operated 29MHz FM, yes FM!. There were a lots of FM guys
in JA always. We could manage over 200 Q's with those FM guys
and hey were not interested in the contest. They just wished
to work rare KH0FM (oh we are AM!). So most those QSOs must be
Unique. Unique is the right contact but does not be shown other
logs. Who can disqualify those QSOs? Nobody, I believe.
---------
Tack Kumagai JE1CKA/KH0AM
TEL:81-30-066-6408, FAX:81-423-93-4449
Internet: je1cka at nal.go.jp
>From Will Sill <will at epix.net> Fri Sep 22 12:55:55 1995
From: Will Sill <will at epix.net> (Will Sill)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 07:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: IG9 skeds
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950922073843.29469D-100000 at mango.epix.net>
Amateur radio is after all a hobby, and I don't suppose we have any right
to hyperventilate over trivia such as what behavior constitutes unfair
contesting. Or do we?
In amateur athletics, entire schools are barred from competition when a
few participants get improper help - and that's not restricted to acts
affecting a particular game, but to such hidden stuff as hidden financial
support.
In bush league auto racing, there's a class of racing where competitors
must actually agree in advance to sell their car for a certain price to
a defeated challenger if they are perceived to have an unfair advantage.
So there's an underlying principle of fairness that, despite
rationalizing, is pretty universally recognized: competitors deserve a
level playing field as defined by the rules. If the rules allow skeds,
then schedule to yer heart's content - let's have rules governing how it's
done, etc. There's a nearby club that makes a regular practice of
scheduling VHF/UHF contest activity - and printing same in their
newsletter! - in advance of Field Days!
To many of us this is the equivalent of cheating. It is bringing outside
resources to bear on the outcome of a contest that is SUPPOSED to pit one
ham or team against another in a time frame.
I think it ought to be regarded as cheating, and clearly spelled out in
the rules. If the contesting community feels differently, so be it, but
let's all play by the same rules.
FWIW
will at epix.net - KD3XR - W F Sill, Tunkhannock, PA
>From w7zrc at micron.net (Rod Greene) Fri Sep 22 13:42:00 1995
From: w7zrc at micron.net (Rod Greene) (Rod Greene)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 06:42 MDT
Subject: Uniques
Message-ID: <m0sw7QY-000QdXC at mis01.micron.net>
Lew is absolutely right on this "Unique" call position. The whole idea of
removing unique calls lacks good logic. Lets get on with some better
concerns.
Regards, Rod w7zrc at micron.net
> Two obvious situations come to mind when discussing disallowing unique
>calls in a contest log.
> 1:I run a full size 3 element beam each on 40M & 80M. My QTH is in RF
>free Zone 3...which means to obtain any serious number of Q's I have to work
>every JA possible... which I try to do. I receive hundreds of JA cards
>each season. Many of them note that I am the only Q that they made on
>that band as they request a QSL confirmation. To disallow these unique
>calls negates my efforts to build a serious station where I can receive
>these weak signals that are non-copyable elsewhere. I wish to keep that
>competitive edge. To remove the uniques, is tantamount to saying "Lets
>level the playing field.. lets take those Q's away.. lets all run the
>same antennae, radios. etc. etc. to make it a real contest!"
> This strikes at the heart of "Why do we contest?" We all can't be
>perched east of the Hudson River. We all can't run monobanders. We all
>can't have the latest whiz-bang RF Box or computers. We all can't go to
>equatorial warm places to contest.... in short we all can't be #1. So
>why do we contest? I think because its fun. Sure its work.. but its an
>area where we can define how we're going to compete, when we're going to
>compete and to what importance we're going to attach to the competition.
>If someone is going to attempt to disallow a whisper quiet Q I made with
>a rookie JA op running 0.1 watt to his rain gutter... then they are
>messing with my fun... and I will object.
> 2: Since there are significant "lulls" in the action here in RF free
>Zone 3 due to the lack of sun activity, I will ask stations I hear
>kibbitzing if they will exchange the contest exchange with me. Some
>respond with eloquent condemnation of contesters in general and me in
>particular. Most respond favorably and they go into my log. Perhaps to be
>a unique, perhaps to become curious and seek out other Q's or perhaps to
>tell their friends about our contest Q and pique their interest.
> Again I don't believe it fair to take away these Q's. They are worked
>for... they are fun...and they keep an operator awake.
> Great thread... but my opinion is set on this one. Put my log through
>the tightest scrutiny as the next contester... but don't uniformly
>disallow unique Q's. T'aint fair to the contesting spirit.
> 73 and I remain, Lew
>
> Lew Sayre N7AVK lew at teleport.com
> P.O.Box 3110 Fax 503-391-2258
> Salem, Oregon 97302 160M thru 1296MHz
>
>
>
>
............................................................................
w7zrc at micron.net Rod Greene W7ZRC Boise ID DN13UN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Alan Scholl <scholla at mail.CandW.ag> Fri Sep 22 05:47:14 1995
From: Alan Scholl <scholla at mail.CandW.ag> (Alan Scholl)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 08:47:14 +0400 (GMT)
Subject: Carribean trips still on??
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950922084540.27913D-100000 at server1.candw.ag>
> With all the hurricane activity in the Carribean this season I haven't
> heard much about the status of CONTEST expeditions for the CQWW contests.
> Are we going to have an even lower number of mults available this season?
>
> Might be a good time to update the Contest DX-Pedition Registry...
As far as i know the V26B gang (frankford Amateur Radio Club) is still
pretty much on schedule for CQWW. I havent heard much else though.
7
3
de V21BF
Alan
>From Dr. Eugene Zimmerman" <ezimmerm at DGS.dgsys.com Fri Sep 22 14:07:29 1995
From: Dr. Eugene Zimmerman" <ezimmerm at DGS.dgsys.com (Dr. Eugene Zimmerman)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 09:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Uniques & CQWW (Was Skeds)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950922084547.16907A-100000 at DGS>
Bill
You asked for some input from a CQWW Committee log checker so here goes
[usual disclaimer here - these are my opinions and not those of the CQWW
Committee].
You raise an interesting point:
> I think it would be great for the CQWW committee to come out next year and
> say: OK folks.. This year if you work a unique (however they define it)
> then you lose the QSO. Let the computers do their thing, spit out the
> results, and print em. Get the results out faster and the I bet not much
> changes from the present system but faster results.
I wish the computer could do all our work since I spent many, many hours
checking logs as did the other Committee members. But it can't work that
way.
The purpose of log checking is to confirm to the extent that we can that
a particular log is accurate and scored properly. The computer is used
to point out contacts (uniques) that may be broken calls. In the
interests of equity and accuracy, for the reasons several other posters
have detailed, we do -not- remove a unique unless we have -proof- from an
electronic or paper log, or other source (letters, etc) that the contact is
bad. There is no way I know of that the computer program by itself can prove
that a particular unique is a bad call.
As for the results, as a log checker I can assure you that they would be
substantially different if we indiscriminately threw out all uniques. And
this would not be fair, particularly to the larger/rarer stations who -do-
work a fair number of legitimate uniques.
As our information base grows [more electronic logs] and as we assemble
more and more collateral data on which calls actually exist, our
electronic checking will make it easier to spot and confirm bad calls.
73 Gene W3ZZ
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list