[CQ-Contest] M/S CQing

[Bruce Lifter]

> 1. The best (most productive) periods belong to "running" station (that's
>     easy to do with a simple SW)
> 2. All the other stations (one, two, three, four or even five) are "mult"
>     stations in the same periods
> 3. Mark all the "non new mults" QSOs with 0 points and hold only
> "new mults"
>    QSOs
> 4. Submit your log and wait till your score will be in the same class with
>    all the other "small" and "regular" M/S stations... You will be around
>    the top of the list, that's for sure..
>
The problem with this theory is that you would maximize your mults
but your number of QSOs would be significantly reduced. Once a station
works you on the band, they will not work you again on that band. If
you are a DX station, you could be excluding more than half your US QSOs.

The challenge with the current CQ WW MS rule is passing the combo
Multi-Single
multiplier / 10 minute rule. With multiple operators, even with great
diligence,
it is nearly impossible to not make a mistake. If you are lucky enough to
find
the mistake, what do you do with it? If you submit your log with the
Cabrillo format, there is no provision for marking the QSO as zero points.
If you leave it in, you risk being bumped to the Multi-Multi category. If
you
remove the QSO, you short change the other station.

It is my opinion that the CQ WW MS, as written today needs work. I would
like
to see Multi-Single go to a "single transmitter", "no mult exclusion"
category,
and a true Multi-Two category be added.

73, Bruce

--
wt4i at brevard.net
WT4I Contest Tools
http://www.wt4i.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Thu Nov  2 00:03:15 2000
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:03:15 -0800
Subject: [CQ-Contest] M/S class rules misunderstandings
Message-ID: <057e01c04460$4d0f9570$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


Robert, S57AW wrote:
>
> I have only two suggestions in this case:
>
> 1. The rules should be clear as crystal and in no way ambiguous... only
one
>   explanation should be possible
> 2. Abolish the M/S category
>
In this entire discussion, one very important issue has clearly been
overlooked.  In addition to being clear and unambiguous, contest rules
should also be enforceable.  At one time, the abuse of the multi-single
class by the "octopus" was a big issue with contesters.  The trouble was,
apparently, that the stations who cheated the octopus regularly and
transmitted two signals at once could not be distinguished from those who
obeyed the rules unless a great deal of effort was expended by the enforcing
bodies, i.e., the volunteers who aid the CQWW committee.  The greatest
specter looming before the committee was the prospect of having rules that
can only be enforced by on-the-air monitors during the contest.  Try to find
volunteers from the contesting community all over the world for that task!

The great genius of the present set of rules governing the CQWW class of M/S
operation is that any practices that violate the rules can be quickly
detected and enforced when the logs go into the log checking computer.  The
logs do not identify clearly who called CQ and who answered.  Instead, they
identify the band used and the time of the contact, and this is sufficient
information to allow the log checkers to identify rules abusers.

Although the present CQWW M/S rules are out of step with the ARRL definition
of a M/S entry, I can confirm that the CQWW M/S class is a fun class to
operate.  Unlike the M/M class, the M/S class requires cooperation between
the two transmitter positions -- teamwork is required to make informed
decisions re: band changes.  The multiplier station actually contributes
significantly to the overall contact rate -- and this "rate" contribution
continues at high levels for at least the first 24 hours of the contest.

Perhaps the biggest drawback to the present CQWW M/S class rules has yet to
be mentioned.  It's very easy to make mistakes while operating this form of
M/S.  For instance, one may easily make a contact with a station thought to
be a new multiplier, only to find out (according to Murphy's law, at the
worst possible time) that the "new" multiplier had already been contacted.

The other drawback to the M/S rules is that there is very little chance of
being completely competitive unless the station is equipped with packet
spotting.  In many locations worldwide this is impossible.  I can see a need
for packet spotting network outlets on several of the HF bands in order to
service these (often remote) areas.  This would mean that a fully
competitive M/S in a remote area of the world would require three rather
than two operating HF stations -- one run, one multiplier, one HF packet.

I believe that we, the contesting community should stop criticizing the CQ
Rules Committee regarding our misunderstanding of the present rule and
recognize the great success that it really has been.



--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From G3SJJ" <g3sjj at btinternet.com  Wed Nov  1 23:39:58 2000
From: G3SJJ" <g3sjj at btinternet.com (G3SJJ)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:39:58 -0000
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: M/S CQing in CQWW
References: <4.2.0.58.20001101165208.00a9cdb0 at pop.mw.mediaone.net>
Message-ID: <00c201c0445d$0cb1cc80$424701d5 at default>


Well said, Dave. When we were formulating the rules of the RSGB IOTA Contest
a few years back, we were quite specific. Two radios only and the second one can
only be used to call new multiplers. Soliciting ie CQ or QRZ is definately NOT
permitted. I examine carefully any logs suspected of violating this rule.

I would very much like to organise a MS operation for CQWW but have kept away
because I didn't really understand the rules or their implications. (and that is someone
who has served on the RSGB HF Contests Committee for 15 years and chaired it for
6 years!) The current thread only serves to confirm my worst fears!

I am no fan of the Cabrillo format for a number of reasons and again my feelings are
confirmed by the person who pointed out that claiming zero points would not be possible
in Cabrillo logs.

Chris Burbanks G3SJJ IOTA Contest Co-ordintaor,
operator for GU8D in IOTA Contest (MO), 
G8D in CQWW SSB SOSB 10m.

--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com