[CQ-Contest] [NCCC] Annual Suggestion

DL8MBS prickler.schneider at t-online.de
Tue Feb 20 01:30:48 EST 2007

K1AR at aol.com wrote:

>This has as much to do with solar conditions as anything. 
Sorry, but this has as much to do with everyday life as anything. Even 
in a 24-h-format as in RDXC only 6 percent of the logsending 
participants operated fulltime (23 hours or more). Average operation 
time was less than 10 hours.

So, as a reasonable compromise let´s at least publish the operation 
times in the score lists - allowing a comparison of the outcome for the 
big majority of hams not able and willing to neglect familiy and other 
commitments completely (which is no sign of lesser commitment or skill).
At the moment the ranking below the few happy fulltimers is more a 
function of invested operation time than a function of skill and 
equipment. Should the "real contesting" only be something for the happy 
few with the rest resorted to "handing out a few qso in the little 
available time" to add a tiny bit to club scores and to the rate of the 
big ones?

At 3830 an undoubtedly competetive top-contester wrote that "it was hard 
to stay motivated" with part time operating. We talk about saving 
milliseconds with "ee" instead of "tu", ommitting "k" at the end of 
RTTY-transmissions - but neglect the effects of hours on the results. 
Kind of  a car manufacturer insisting on only selling its top model 
without regard to the budget of the consumers (financial budget there, 
time budget with us).

Is there anything known from organizers that speaks against the 
publication of the individual operation times?

Thanks for reading and best 73, Chris


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list