[CQ-Contest] Annual Suggestion

Pete Smith n4zr at contesting.com
Sun Feb 25 11:16:28 EST 2007

Is there any reason why this couldn't be done entirely separate from the administration of whatever contest is chosen?  People wishing to enter the 12 or 24-hour limited time categories could submit a cc of their logs to the limited time category organizers, who would then check the operating time and wait for the official log checking to be complete, before deciding the winners from among the limited time entrants. 

 From a world-wide perspective, I think there is merit in not requiring the 12 or 24 hours to be consecutive, but I feel less strongly about that than I do about giving the limited time concept a fair test.  Count on my help, too.

73, Pete N4ZR

At 12:25 PM 2/24/2007, Jim Neiger wrote:
> Well thought-out and this is something I could definitely support.  The 
>challenge, of course, will be to help the sponsors with the extra burden. 
>And where do the results get published (since we already know the major 
>magazines are already reducing contest pages)?  Perhaps on contesting.com or 
>another on-line service??
>If you're willing to take the LEAD on this Randy, you can count on my help.
>Vy 73
>Jim Neiger  N6TJ
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd at charter.net>
>To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:55 AM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Annual Suggestion
>> It has been interesting to watch how the debate has progressed on this
>> issue.  In any 48 hour DX contest, there are may be 20 people world wide 
>> who
>> operate more than 44 hours.  I had no idea there were so many others who
>> feel that unlimited operating time is such an important part of 
>> contesting.
>> I am a guy who can do 48 hours in a weekend.  It is hard, but in some 
>> cases
>> it is the only way to play if you want to win.  I.e., I personally never
>> want to finish second in a contest only because I didn't operate the extra
>> hour or two!
>> Let's attack the problem from a different direction...
>> Contests are funny things.  Competitors (the hard core contesters) think 
>> the
>> contest is run for them so they can test and prove their skill.  However,
>> contest sponsors provide contests to create as much fun for as many people
>> as possible (the masses).
>> I think we all can agree that 48 hours is in the best interest of the
>> masses.  It is fun to get on the air at various times over the weekend and
>> find activity.  It is also nice for the guys who travel to DX locations to
>> have 48 hours of fun for their investment.
>> The problem for me is that the current approach only offers one level of
>> competition.  You are either trying to win the whole thing or you are 
>> "just
>> playing around."  If you are a competitive person (and most contesters 
>> are),
>> you want to compete.  But, if your life on a given weekend is crowded with
>> other priorities, you are designated into the playing around group.
>> Why not create some sub classes that provide more fun for more people.
>> These classes should not change any of the existing classes.  They should
>> just be there to give people more races to run (kind of like having a
>> quarter or half marathon run on the same course as a full marathon).  They
>> should also not incent people to operate less (the goal should always be 
>> to
>> increase overall activity!).
>> My suggestion:
>> - Create 12 hour and 24 hour races
>> - The 12 or 24 hours consist of a continuous period beginning with your
>> first QSO (i.e., the clock starts with your first QSO)
>> - There are no off times
>> - You can operate the contest as much as you want.  Your score is 
>> calculated
>> by the log checker based on the first 12 and 24 hour marks
>> - No preregistration or special marking of your log.  ALL LOGS are 
>> included
>> in the scoring/results
>> Advantages:
>> - Easy to administer
>> - Everyone can play
>> - A guy trying for a 12/24 hour win still has to compete with the full 
>> time
>> competitors
>> - Entrants may chose to stop operating when they reach their time limit, 
>> but
>> they are not required to do so
>> Disadvantages
>> - Extra log checker burden
>> - Extra page or two of results
>> - Requires change of thinking (apparently difficult for many of us!)
>> This would also make a simple contest within a contest to run if the main
>> contest sponsor was not interested.
>> Look forward to discussion on a "new" idea.
>> Randy, K5ZD
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eric Hilding
>>> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:46 PM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Cc: nccc at contesting.com
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Annual Suggestion
>>> <annual suggestion>
>>> After reading many "I couldn't operate more than 30, 35 or 40
>>> hours" type comments in 3830 posts, it's that time again for
>>> my Annual Suggestion to add a "36 out of 48 Hours" category
>>> (or something like that) to the ARRL DX Contest for those of
>>> us in the Geriatric Generation.
>>> I appreciated the past supportive comments of AL, D4B/4L5A,
>>> and others who also believe that such a Category might
>>> actually increase activity.  OF's who aren't willing to make
>>> a serious effort or sacrifice their health knowing they can't
>>> (or won't) be able to do the entire 48 hours are more likely
>>> to go like proverbial bats-out-of-h*ll for 36 hours in the
>>> chance to competitively win something.
>>> </annual suggestion>
>>> 73...
>>> Rick, K6VVA
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list