[CQ-Contest] Here we go again

[Pete Smith]

Well, I guess where you stand depends on where you sit.  For most of us on 
the east coast, geography in SS is a major disadvantage compared with you 
guys in the center of our respective countries (Kelly, this may not be fair 
to you because of your Northness, I don't know).

If you don't like my ideas, suggest your own.  How do we make Sundays less 
of a disincentive, particularly on CW?

73, Pete N4ZR

At 11:09 AM 11/23/2004, Kelly Taylor wrote:

>I second Steve's analysis of band-by-band conditions.
>
>Even excluding WP3R, stations in southern latitudes had extreme advantages
>in 10 meters that northern folk simply didn't have.
>
>I often scanned 10 as I was running, and found lots of guys in the south
>running with really good rates for a long time working stations we couldn't
>hear. Even W7GG had 299 Qs on 10, vs. my 6, VE4GV's zero and similarly
>sub-20 Q rates by many in the midwest.
>
>The work-once-period rule serves as a bit of a geographic equalizer,
>particularly during waning sunspot years. Turning SS into a once-per-band
>contest may appeal to southerners, but it would decimate participation among
>northerners. If you want to kiss a sweep goodbye forever, this is a good way
>to do it.
>
>I'm all for making a change to boost participation, but I think this one
>isn't it. You'd trade increased participation by some for less by others.
>Not good.
>
>73, kelly
>ve4xt
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Root" <steve.root at culligan4water.com>
>To: "Cq-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>; "Pete Smith"
><n4zr at contesting.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:30 AM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
>
>
> > Pete,
> >
> > I think that it's a great idea for all of us to consider ways to encourage
> > contest activity or make needed improvements.  At the same time, we need
>to
> > be careful about how those changes would affect all of the players.
> >
> > SS is pretty special the way it is right now.  Especially for a lot of us
> > who live in the Northern Latitudes.  You wouldn't believe how awful 10
> > meters (and frequently 15 meters) can be up here.  In an SS 10 meters is
> > pretty much worthless.  For example, in last year's CW SS  I made 3% of my
> > QSO's on 10 meters.  And that's with an efficient SAO2R setup. Strategy
> > comes in to play in figuring out how to find the people you're missing on
>10
> > meters on other bands.  If you can do that, then you can be somewhat
> > competitive.  That's part of SS that makes it a great contest.
> >
> > Good luck to everybody this weekend!
> >
> > 73 Steve K0SR
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com>
> > To: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr at citlink.net>; "Cq-Contest"
> > <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Here we go again
> >
> >
> > > While we're at it, let's get serious about revising this contest to
> > > stimulate more activity.  Make mults one per band rather than
> > > overall.  Wouldn't the first 5-band or 6-band sweep be something?  Allow
> > > one QSO per station per band, and eliminate the Sunday doldrums.
> > >
> > > To my mind, this would make virtually the perfect contest -- an exchange
> > > with content that *must* be copied, retaining potential for modest
> > stations
> > > to make lots of contacts and rack up respectable scores, and 24 hours
> > > on-time.  Having more mults and Qs available would make the off-time
> > > decision into a critical strategic choice rather than deciding which 6
> > > hours will be the worst.
> > >
> > > In the past, suggestions of this sort were met with the complaint,
>"That'd
> > > be just another NAQP."  My response is "What's wrong with that,"
> > > particularly if it attracts SS-plus levels of participation instead of
>the
> > > few hundred regulars who get involved in NAQPs.
> > >
> > > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > >
> > > At 07:18 PM 11/22/2004, Richard Zalewski wrote:
> > >
> > > >This is part of my post from Sweepstakes.
> > > >
> > > >When are we going to wake up and sit at
> > > >the table and restructure the operating classes of not only this
>contest
> > but
> > > >all.  If we are going to have classes and not just a free for all then
> > SO2R
> > > >needs to be dealt with so that the classes have some meaning.  And
>while
> > > >we are
> > > >at it Packet is here for the foreseeable future so deal with it also.
> > > >
> > > >Let the fun begin!!
> > > >
> > > >Dick W7ZR
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > >CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest