[CQ-Contest] A New Contest?

[lz4uu@mail.bg]

24 hours sprint...sounds fantactic!

Цитат на писмо от Jim George <n3bb at mindspring.com>:

> At 09:08 AM 12/6/2005 -0800, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > >>I have had to read so much of this stuff, I finally
> am driven to have MY
> >say.<<
> >
> >My say would be that the ultimate rule alteration for DX
> contests would be to
> >adopt the CW Sprint QSY rule. It would eliminate
> stations from staking out a
> >CQ frequency, would help mimimize the 'east coast
> advantage' in DX contests,
> >would emphasize skill over power and would put a
> permanent end to the debate
> >over who is cheating by using packet spotting because
> packet would be rendered
> >totally useless.
> >
> >Combine that with using grid squares as the multipliers
> and using the scoring
> >method by distance from square to square a la the Stew
> Perry Topband contest
> >and you'd have the ingredients for quite an amazing
> event. Make it a 24 hour
> >event on both modes simultaneously like IARU so there is
> only one set of band
> >openings through the contest...wow. A boy can dream,
> can't he?
> >
> >I like CQ WW the way it is - no changes needed. But a
> 24 hour DX contest with
> >the Sprint QSY rule, both modes concurrent, scoring
> based on distance worked
> >and multipliers by grid square would truly be one
> competitive, tough event.
> >
> >OK, back into my cave...
> >
> >Scott W4PA
>
> ********************************
>
>
> I second Scott's suggestion, a new contest should be
> defined. Let's face
> it, the present contest standards are popular because
> they offer rules and
> activity people like. They are going to change only
> slightly over time, if
> at all. However If someone could sponsor a new contest
> along the following
> lines, it could level the playing field a lot and
> encourage more activity,
> as more people would have a chance to be competitive.
> It's not trivial to
> sponsor and adjudicate a contest. Hats off to the
> present sponsors who put
> in the time and effort. Your efforts are to be applauded
> and
> recognized. But if an organization got behind a new
> concept, I feel it
> would become very popular, because more people have a
> chance to be
> competitive. This is the key factor, along with a real
> time indication of
> performance.
>
> (1) Exchange includes a Serial Number and Zone (CQ or
> ITU). The S/N would
> indicate a real time indication of activity, and would
> require copying
> something other than the other station's call sign. S/Ns
> for multi-multi
> stations would be band based, so the single band entries
> would have an
> indication of their rates compared with the individual
> band-stations of the
> multi-multis. Multi-2 stations, if permitted, should
> have a single number
> for each transmitter.
> (2) Mults include both DXCC entity and Zone (CQ or ITU)-a
> double mult
> concept. Keep the DXCC entities, as the basic thrill of
> DXing is a strong
> pull. A "double mult" is quite a thrill. A grid square
> might be an
> efficient way to provide a distance multiplier, but it
> lacks pizzazz.
> (3) Mults count on all six bands (encourage moving and
> six band operation).
> (4) Some way to recognize that more points should be
> awarded for longer
> distance contacts and less points should be awarded for
> shorter
> contacts. This could be done by an algorithm using CQ or
> ITU zones and an
> average short-path distance between the centers of the
> two Zones. I
> realize one can be in a "far" or "close" portion of a
> Zone compared with
> another Zone, but at least a West Coast USA (CQ 3, ITU 6)
> to Western Europe
> (CQ 15, ITU 27) contact would be awarded more than areas
> which have a
> distinct propagation advantage, such as the East Coast
> USA to Western
> Europe. Likewise, a JA opening from W3 to Japan would
> receive more points
> than a W6 run to JA.. The intent is to level the playing
> field a bit, and
> encourage operators to look for tougher paths when they
> are open. QSO
> points are awarded for all contacts. A QSO with one's
> own Zone is worth
> one point. Contest programs currently calculate QSO
> points based on a
> table with DXCC entities and their continents, so it
> would be relatively
> easy to calculate the Zone-to-Zone distances, and assign
> a point/QSO
> total. The QSO point totals should include a point
> system which
> accentuates the value of a longer distance contact. The
> details would be
> considered to be reasonable and reward longer paths which
> are open for
> shorter time windows. This would eliminate the present
> system that rewards
> 500 mile (or less) contacts with maximum points because
> they are in
> different continents. This simply is ridiculous from a
> logical standpoint.
> (5) Set time limits for Single-Ops; 36 out of 48 hours
> max, or 18 hours out
> of 24 hours That will encourage more serious competitors
> and make strategy
> more of a factor.
> (6) Although the CW Sprint is my favorite contest, I
> don't support giving
> up the ability for a station to run on a frequency. Thus
> I have not
> incorporated the "Sprint QSY Rules." Frankly, many
> people find that
> difficult, and I am concerned it would limit
> participation. In the long
> run, we want to get as much participation as possible.
> Real competition
> with a more level playing field will help participation
> worldwide.
>
> Jim George N3BB
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
></br>-----------------------------</br>
<a target='_blank' href="http://mail.bg/ads/adclick.php?bannerid=3198&amp;zoneid=13&amp;source=&amp;dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atol.bg%2Fatol%2Findexc%3Faffid%3D1000&amp;ismap=">
http://www.atol.bg - Намери бившите си съученици и стари приятели!</a><div id="beacon_3198" style="position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><img src='http://mail.bg/ads/adlog.php?bannerid=3198&amp;clientid=2345&amp;zoneid=13&amp;source=&amp;block=0&amp;capping=0&amp;cb=10091c7005eb33aa328a087d0488a116' width='0' height='0' alt='' style='width: 0px; height: 0px;'></div>