[CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules)
4X4KF
4x4kf at iarc.org
Wed Oct 11 01:46:13 EDT 2006
Hi OM N7MAL
You probably don't know human nature.
The problem with the old system is that it is old.
The problem with some humans is that they have to change for the sake of
change.
They are like a dog who pees against every tree. They both want to leave
their sign
for the sake of recognition.
I see it in almost every category in life.
Michael 4X4KF
N7MAL wrote:
>I'm the guy who started this thread and I'm still waiting, either publicly
>or privately, for someone to explain what was wrong with the old system.
>When something works so well for more than 20 years I think it should become
>the standard. I was asked this question 5 times in private responses: How
>does SDIE relate to San Diego or LASS relate to Los Angeles.?. Recently
>there was a brand, shiny, new contest, 7QP, which used 3 letter
>abbreviations and there were no problems. 7QP was a multi-state QSO party.
>I don't see this as advancing contesting or making it easier for newcomers.
>I'm sorry all I see is changing the rules for the sake of changing the
>rules.
>Maybe someone can invite a high 'mukity-muck' from NCCC to enlighten us.
>73
>
>c.c. NCCC
>
>MAL
>N7MAL
>BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
>http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 16:04
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules)
>
>
> Bud, with all due respect, I fail to see this as something "imperative,"
>at least for the vast majority of single state QSO parties.
>
> Let's back up a second and think about why we're using these abbreviations
>in the first place.
>
> During the contest, the county abbreviation's primary purposes are
>two-fold:
>
> (a) to permit the operators, especially on CW, to quickly and accurately
>exchange the County multiplier information. While it may not seem a big
>deal to send "BUX" for Bucks Co. or "GRE" or "GRN" for Greene Co., for
>example, it can make a huge difference when sending "LAC" for Lackawanna, or
>"NUM" for Northumberland, etc. More importantly, it also helps
>differentiate (to the in-state op, where applicable) the difference between,
>say Delaware County (DCO) and the State of Delaware (DEL), or Northampton
>County (NHA) and New Hampshire (NH).
>
> (b) to permit the operators or loggers to quickly and accurately enter the
>county information in the log so that proper credit for a valid QSO is
>maintained.
>
> And of course, after the contest, the abbreviation's primary purpose is to
>help the log checker(s) ensure that the QSO is valid and that the correct
>county is entered.
>
> Keeping this in mind. I'm sorry, but I fail to make the "leap of faith"
>that appears to require the various state QSO parties to adapt the MARAC 2x4
>county list as "standard."
>
> For one thing, there will be confusion. I think someone noted yesterday
>that some stations in the CaQP were still sending the "old" 3 letter
>abbreviations, not the "new" 4 letter ones. This is a problem that will
>persist for years, as some people will (for any one of a dozen reasons) fail
>to update their software or hardcopies to show the new abbreviations. So,
>what are you going to do, DQ them? I doubt it - the last thing anyone
>really wants to do is tick off active participants, to the point where they
>no longer wish to participate. (And I sure hope that some of those who
>publicly swore off the upcoming Pa QSO Party, a few months back, for adding
>RTTY & PSK-31 modes, have a change of heart and will be active, but I
>digress)
>
> For another. also as noted in other posts, there appears to be a
>discrepancy between the 4 letter lists that CaQP used and that MARAC is
>recommending. So, when there's a discrepancy like this, who do you trust?
>
> So, having said all this (and I could go on, but I trust I've made my
>point), I suspect that some of the software writers might be better served
>to provide a conversion table between the MARC 2x4 codes and the existing 3
>letter abbreviations. This way, they don't have to re-write their contest
>logging software for the new format (I understand CT 10.x has a problem with
>the new format, tho CT 9.x does not - and I'm sure there are many others),
>the contest sponsors don't have to rewrite their log checking routines, and
>so forth. And for people like you, you can just let the software "do it's
>thing," copy and record what's sent, and know that the conversion table will
>give you the correct input for your county hunting log purposes.
>
> Trying to force all state QSO parties to change their methods to
>accommodate the needs of county hunters just seems to be a case of the tail
>wagging the dog, and it's just not necessary.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> --------------Original Message --------------------------
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:08:43 +0000
> From: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU at frontiernet.net>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] 2x4 County designators (was Contest Rules)
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>
> Michael Keane K1MK wrote:
>
> >MARAC adopted W0QE's list of 2x4 county abbreviations for the County
> >Hunters CW Contest because the managers of that contest do have to
> >deal with all 3076 counties being in play at once.
> >
> >Whether such a unique-id is of value in regional QSO parties or on
> >weekends when several QSO parties are held is up to the sponsors to
>decide.
> >
> >
> I get in the state QSO parties primarily for the fun of chasing county
> multipliers -- maybe someday leading to a County Hunters certificate.
> As soon as I encountered my first "multi-state" QSO Party weekend, I
> felt the need for exactly such a system as this 2x4 approach. I believe
> this common format is much more than being simply "of value" for the
> circumstances Mike suggests in his second paragraph -- I believe it's
> *imperative*, and represents a major step on the way to eliminating the
> crazy variations and asymmetries in in-state / out-of-state contest
> exchanges that have cropped up over the years.
>
> Admittedly, there's a short-term "conversion problem' on voice modes
> while we figure out how to best bridge the gap between the spoken county
> name and its typed or handwritten 4-character representation in the log
> entry process, but I'm confident that software methods for converting
> even mis-spelled and mis-typed county names and partial county names to
> the right 4 characters in the 2x4 County field are less complex to
> implement than many of the *existing* features of today's contest
> logging programs.
>
> Bud, W2RU
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/469 - Release Date: 10/9/2006
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1797 (20061010) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list