[CQ-Contest] Why no Packet for SOAB

[i4jmy at iol.it]

> > Just a simple observation regarding the use of packet  in CQWW 
Contests.
> >
> > Winning contests is about turning the highest score.

...and beeing or going in the right place to take advantage by a 
favourable QSO/points average or managing with a better propagation. 
This is valid either to an absolute victory or within continental 
borders, and all skyrockets when sun cycle peak is low or even when its 
peak is below average.


> > In CQWW contests:
> > Score = (Average QSO Points) * (QSO's) * (Multipliers)
> >
> > In most geographical locations (Average QSO Points) is pretty
> > much constant.

If "location" is intended as a discrete point then I agree, if instead 
the term "location" identifyes a larger entity like a whole continent, 
then latitude and distances force to different strategies and weighting 
between qso and mults.
Already between someone in CT and someone in I, somenone in W4 or W0, 
have to play different and who has shorter openings and less chances in 
higher bands, at least since EU and NA will stay the big barrels for 
QSOs, is often out of the games for a victory. 
Even within continental borders. 

> > Therefore the contest is won by maximizing both QSO's and 
Multipliers.
> >
> > Allowing packet, and now let's imagine all the operators could
> > work all the
> > spotted multipliers in their geographical area, would turn
> > Multipliers into
> > another constant for that area.

This is questionable because non objective and too much simplyfied.
Getting an info from an external and globalized net doesn't necessarily 
and automatically place a good QSO into the log.
First of all because a great competition sets up a big mess and the 
time to log a valid mult could be excessive, second because the info 
could be not workable in some area at a time, third because spotting is 
often mistaken and needs to be checked.
  
Looking at final results it seems that top assisted stations never 
reach the mults number of not assisted.
Or this means that best not assisted are instead "assisted" or that 
good skill and experience anyway beats the strategy to hunt mults by 
packet (or internet) spots. 


> > The contest would loose one of the TWO variables.
> > It would turn basically into a RUN only event.

CQWWDX is already a RUN event since a location between NA and EU but 
off this continent is a KEY to maximize QSO points and someone in EU or 
NA can't recover with mults.

> > That is why Packet should not be allowed for SOAB.
> >
> > But Packet is there. There is nothing we can do about it, so for 
those
> > wanting a less challenging category, or should I be politically
> > correct and
> > say different challenge, there is always SOAB Assisted where you
> > are free to
> > use it.

Times are changed, packet is there, internet is there and we won't 
remove them.
To switch it off would be not only absurd and impossible, but it will 
transform a contest in a boring private affair between a limited number 
of competitors.
Most of QSOs are actually made with occasionals that mostly are on to 
get new countries, and by the way reply to You and other contesters, 
and by the way they experience thir own little pile ups, may be getting 
finally interested in the specifical activity.


> > Some may say and what about SO2R. Won't that turn Multipliers into a
> > constant as well?
> > You need to know WHERE and WHEN to find those Multipliers and 
trains your
> > skills for that, a lot different from just looking at a packet
> > screen where
> > everybody does your job for you, wouldn't you say?

Like recently happened with traction control and electronics with F1 
races, when something is out of control and the credibility of the game 
could be at risk, then is better to allow and set a new plain level 
field than to prohibit.
Having been both a single op unassisted and a MM or MS operator but 
without separate and dedicated mult stations, I experienced that 
working a spotted mult and keeping an effective pile up is often all 
but not a "strike and go" business, expecially with average setups.
That's often a time consuming way to log a mult and wisely one has to 
analyze the info and deciding if to deal or not in a particular moment, 
but this takes away concentration and requires knowdledge in 
propagation and experience in contesting.

In my opinion a single skilled individual that's already at top level 
running for a victory can hardly get advantage with packet and probably 
gets finally an handycap by using. Anyway I can be wrong, but once in 
my life I'd like to see one of the top unassisted operators claiming 
the opposite to enter assisted and showing the world how their final 
score would improve because of that. 

73,
Mauri I4JMY

> > 73
> > José Carlos Nunes
> > CT1BOH / P40E
> >


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